Well, good morning. Yes, it is morning here in Phoenix, Arizona. Anyways, it's hard to tell. Very cloudy today here in Phoenix, which is good. We've got some cooler weather coming in for us. Only 75 for a high tomorrow. It's taking a little while to cool off. I mean, it's not bad. I mean, 80, who's complaining about that? But did you notice, first night on the trip, low of 16 now. 16. I haven't felt 16 in probably six, seven, eight years. Last time I was in St. Charles, I think was the last time I felt something that cold. So yeah, that's going to be going to be a little bit on the nippy side, sort of looking forward to that. Got my got my sweaters ready to go. And yeah, we're looking forward to it. Prayers for safety, for my health. Prayers for a on the road recorded discussion debate on the 29th that I'll tell you about after it takes place, but big one and so I Would appreciate prayers for that and of course prayers that I will not pass out each time I have to pull into a gas station Because every time we fill up that tank it's just gonna be Yeah, I'm gonna be fun Yeah, you have to call the bank, get a loan approval, third, fourth, fifth mortgage, all the way out and back again. So, Travel Fund. Travelfund.aomint.org. That's how we do these things. Anyway, what absolutely insane world we live in today. Dalrymple quote that I've given to you over and over again is just, it's almost becoming old because it's being lived out every single day. And I keep holding on to it because if I don't, then I'm actually expecting rational thought and consistency from people on the left and they have no interest in it. That's why, by the way, this is part of the delusion of judgment is when people who are made in the image of God live in such a fashion that they embrace contradiction, they embrace hypocrisy, they embrace double standards, they embrace irrationality. And do so with a gusto because it helps them to promote their narrative. I mean, there you have judgment par excellence. It's absolutely all around us. And so I'm in contact with believers elsewhere in the world and places that I once got to visit regularly and will probably not ever get to again. But they are facing, they're getting hit with the things we know are coming before us. So they're the tip of the spear, basically. And so as Austria establishes universal vaccine mandates, this morning I was reading a German official saying that by the end of this winter, everyone in Germany will either have had COVID, will be immunized against COVID, or will be dead from COVID. Again, the numbers don't change. The numbers haven't changed. The numbers haven't changed since we started getting an idea in Italy as to ages, comorbidities. They've stayed pretty much in the same range, but they don't want you to think of it that way. All you ever hear about is the people who die of COVID. You don't hear about the people who all of a sudden discover they've had it and never even knew they had it, all that kind of stuff. But what we're going to hear as the winter comes on in the northern hemisphere is places like Gibraltar that are fully vaccinated and 40% into the next, okay, we can't even define the term fully vaccinated. We've changed the definition of vaccine. Y'all know that, right? Vaccine in 2019 meant something that gave you immunity. Now it's something that lessens the effects of something. They've changed definition to fit this disaster they've rolled out and call this great scientific advancement. And so, you know, yeah, you had to get the two doses and of course Johnson Johnson one it just crashed it's What was the picture of that early plane, you know, that sort of goes up and just goes whoosh and wings fall off and stuff like that? That's the Johnson and Johnson vaccine right there. I mean, just boom. And so you have to get more of that, you know, automatically, real fast. And so now you're doing the boosters. And obviously what it's gonna be is minimally every six months, probably more than that, get your shot, get your shot, get your shot, get your shot. And so it's constantly moving goalposts, constantly moving. And of course, constantly making sure to pour more and more of the spike protein into the entirety of your body when we don't know what that impact's gonna be on many organs of the body. We do now know without question. The spike proteins impact upon the heart. We have premier athletes dropping dead, passing out, having cardiac arrests. We don't know why. Yes, we do. Yes, we do. I have in front of me abstract 1010712 from originally published November, 2021. That's right now. This was two days ago, I think. mRNA COVID vaccines dramatically increase endothelial inflammatory markers and ACS risk as measured by the PULS cardiac test, a warning. Our group has been using the PULS cardiac test, a clinically validated measurement of multiple protein biomarkers, which generates a score predicting the five-year risk percent of chance of a new acute coronary syndrome. The score is based on changes from the norm of multiple protein biomarkers including, which I'm not even gonna bother to try to pronounce all those and no one will know what they are anyways. Elevation above the norm increases the PULS score while decreases below the norm lowers the PULS score. The scores are measured every three to six months in our patient population for eight years. Okay, eight years every three to six months. Recently, with the advent of the mRNA-coded 19 vaccines by Moderna and Pfizer, dramatic changes in the POLS score became apparent in most patients. This report summarizes those results. It gives you some of the information here. And then it says, these changes resulted in increase the PLS score from 11%. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vaccine. We conclude that the mRNA vaccines dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination. Now, what's fascinating is if any of you follow Alex Berenson on Substack, you can't follow him on Twitter anymore because he's been banished from Twitter. If you follow him on Substack, he's reporting that if you try to forward his emails to certain email servers, they will bounce. They scan for his name and his website name, and they refuse to accept the emails. So when people say, well, everybody I talk to, they all love the vaccines. There's a reason for this. It's not that the data isn't there. It is. It's very clearly there. And I didn't even bother, I can't run the Joe Biden cookies filter and everything. You can't do that while reading a scientific paper and stuff like that. So, well, you know, every program is gonna be our last program. If you dare point out that, well, there's the science, you know, this stuff has been used. They started using the POLS cardiac test eight years ago, okay? So long before COVID. But it doesn't matter now? No, it doesn't matter now. Because it's not about a virus. Never has been. There will be. It's control. It's complete control. So there's all sorts of stuff coming up. I don't know if any of you have... I have an article here Footballers taking a fall and this time it's not theater and the list here just goes on and on and on it is huge the number of less than 30 year old athletes 17-year-old footballer Miguel Lugo collapsed, died during practice. 16-year-old football player Devon DeHert mysteriously died in July 2021. 16-year-old footballer Ivan Hicks dies of cardiovascular disease during scrimmage. It just goes on and on and on. You just scroll and scroll and scroll and scroll. But it's all coincidence. Oh, this was all happening before. No, it wasn't. No, it wasn't. Well, you don't know that they all were, look, that It seems to me that there is such a thing as panic-induced mental syndrome, derangement syndrome, PIDs, panic-induced derangement syndrome. There we go, PIDs. I think constant exposure every day to a focused sociological fear may be one of the most effective mind control methods ever developed. And so if every day, everybody around you is wearing openly their signs of being just as afraid as you are. So sometimes I'll be standing by the side of a street and I'll just watch, or I'll be sitting in my truck and I'm watching people turning in front of me. And I just watch how many of them have a mask on in their vehicle alone with the windows rolled up. Now, some of them, it's just because they've gotten so used to having it, they don't even know it's there. But for others, they're, this is, I'm doing my thing. When you see that, it reinforces the idea, you need to be constantly afraid. You need to be constantly in fear. And I think it creates a very cowardly attitude. It's safism, again, gotta be safe, gotta be safe. Unless it kills people and then we don't have to worry about that. They died for the cause and were sacrificing children for the cause. That's what's going on. So Austria by, I think it was February 2nd, February 1st, universal vaccines required, or basically you're locked in your house. You have no life left. Lose your job, lose your house, starve to death, doesn't matter. We don't care. Austria especially should be the first place that goes, you know, we probably shouldn't be doing the, your papers, please! Since some certain leader in the 1930s and 40s was born in Austria. They've forgotten, evidently. It's sad. But anyway, and that's going to be going to Germany. Fairly quickly, and again, everybody knows it has nothing to do with public health, public safety. Everybody knows it. I don't know how those people stand there. Did you see the guy from Australia? The guy from the Northern Territories in Australia? Wow, that guy reminds me of Joseph Smith on a bad day. He really did. I mean, this is a zealot. This is a cultic zealot. If you campaign against the mandates, you're anti-vaccine, you want to kill people. Oh, the guy is just, you know, you will never find him in a frame of mind when you can actually reason with him and say, could we look at the numbers? Could we read this paper that I was just referring to? Could we look at this and see that And then could we look at Anthony Fauci, who's now promising us infant vaccines for people who have no danger whatsoever, but they can spread it to 80-year-olds. If you're an 80-year-old and you want to endanger your newborn great-grandchild to protect you from COVID, you're a coward! I am disgusted with my generation. That we would sacrifice our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren? Oh. You should just, oh. Sorry, I, oh. Deep breath, anyway. So, then you put all this together. When I watched this video, I made a comment on Twitter. Monday, Sunday afternoon, I preached Apologia, and I preached out of Psalm 12. I preached Psalm 12, and I did do what I promised. I made the connection to the abuse of Psalm 12 by the King James Onlyists, and sometimes OTR Onlyists, not as much, but especially by King James Onlyists, where they abuse Psalm 12, 6 and 7. They make an application that the psalmist would be going, Yeah, no, I wasn't talking about a 17th century English translation of the Bible. No, that wasn't what I was talking about. But there is some incredible stuff in there. I mean, Psalm 12, 8, the wicked strut about when that which is vile is honored amongst men. And I'm surprised it's still up on YouTube because I clearly mentioned what's vile and certain people that promote that which is vile amongst men. But there's also that, I think it's verse five, where people say, our lips are our own. Who is Lord over us? I mean, talk about the essence of the secular worldview being expressed. And so I call it a psalm for our day. And I really, tried to push hard on the reality that speaking, the beginning of Psalm says that they speak empty words, falsehoods, a man to his neighbor, back and forth. And when we think about what is going on in our society today with Utter disregard for truth. Utter disregard for truth. And the damage is being done by simply repeating lies. Solzhenitsyn, live not by lies. Communism depends upon lies. I hope you all caught that when BLM started marching in Chicago after the Rittenhouse verdict, you caught their chant, right? The only real solution is the communist revolution. The only real solution is the communist revolution. When we first started calling this stuff communism, you tinfoil, you have changed so much, and now they're marching down the streets calling for communist revolution. It's sort of like, hey, y'all notice that? And now you've taken the tinfoil and stuck it in your ears. You won't listen. But the communists are out front and in many ways they're already in charge in our nation and doing everything they can to destroy it and to tear it to shreds and are succeeding in many ways doing so. But the point is repetition of lies. Repetition of lies. And so I know that Jeff and the folks at Apologia did a program on the subject of the Rittenhouse stuff. For some reason it won't go to full screen. Oh, that's because I'm doing the wrong full screen. Eh, it's good enough. So I'm not going to spend too much time on it, though listening... What has struck me is the utter insensibility on the part of so many people to, they experience no shame when they lie and lie openly. So it's Psalm 12. They speak empty words to one another, back and forth, back and forth. And it creates, it allows lies become accepted. So, you know, Biden talked about the pandemic of the unvaccinated. You don't hear that anymore, do you? People still believe it, but you don't hear it because it's too easy to demonstrate it's not true. Tell the people in Gibraltar, this is the pandemic of the unvaccinated. Their cases are shooting through the roof. They've canceled Christmas. They're 100% vaccinated and 40% with boosters. These things do not stop the virus. And in fact, as I mentioned a couple of programs ago, I can show you a paper from 2016 that specifically says that the use of leaky vaccines, that's what these are, that's the technical term, leaky vaccines, they don't actually produce immunity, always results in bad things. And that's what we're seeing. And this was, we were telling you this months ago, but again, people just don't wanna listen. And they like what they're being told. So anyway, back to the Rittenhouse thing, you repeat a lie over and over again. And it seems to me that once you introduce the factor of panic, you will believe the people who promise you safety, even if you know that you're actually not gonna get safety from their promises. You don't wanna believe that people are saying you're gonna have to buck it up and take responsibility for yourself. even if they have the facts. And so, in the Rittenhouse case, very briefly, if you watched the trial, if you watched the video, if you looked at the pictures, there wasn't any question. None. The narrative was established by the media long before the trial ever came out. And even once the trial happened, the narrative just gets repeated over and over again. And I fear that many people, most people on the left in our society, remember that beta male, and I mean more like a delta male, reporter for the New York Times about, what, three, four years ago that told the story about firing an AR-15. Remember, he was talking about how it almost dislocated his shoulder and caused bruising, and the sound almost deafened him. And they're literally people that go out with signs, and they have holes in signs this big, and this is what an AR-15 does to, you know, and stuff like this. And the thing is, I wonder what percentage of the population has ever held an AR-15 or fired an AR-15, knows what a .223 is, 5.56 millimeter, knows how many grains the bullet is, anything like that at all. And so it just seems like a lot of people are willing to believe lies about this stuff. Now, I have an AR-15. Yep, I have an AR-15. It is not an assault rifle. If you think it's an assault rifle, you're an idiot. You're an idiot. You don't know what you're talking about. You're stupid. Okay, can we just be honest about it? And you want to be stupid. You're accepting of your stupidity. Well, it says AR. It's not what it stands for. It's just, this is amazing. But remember that guy? This is a .223. I've always been a little bit surprised that our military went to the .223. Because in World War II, you're firing .30 cal, you know, Springfields and much more punch that bullet than the AR, than the .223 has. 5.56 millimeter. And in comparison to, you know, I could show you, if I showed you a spent 223. Or just the round, because sadly, so many people don't even know. People actually think that whole brass casing goes flying through the air and stuff like this. I mean, they don't know. I know they don't know. Which means they should keep their mouth shut about things they don't know. But anyway, if I compared a .223, the largest rifle I have is a honey rifle. that was given to me a number of years ago that I've only used once in hunting and was successful. That's why Betsy the black bear is hanging in the other room. 338 Winchester Magnum. All the shooters in the audience are going, yeah, that one would fit the description of the guy. That leaves a mark on your shoulder if you don't have the gun seated properly. And when I took my bear, because of the way I was having to sit in the stand, I couldn't put it on my shoulder. I had to have it on my bicep. And yeah, I had a black and blue mark for days after just one round. But that's a, you wouldn't, you'd be going, oh, come on. There's that much of a difference. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, it's huge and that's firing 180 grain a bullet 223s are normally doing 50 to 70 range Grains, they're very small And that's the same size to 22 as far as diameter is concerned and so anyway They People just don't know what the laws are And they don't know the difference between an actual assault rifle, semi-automatic. They have no earthly idea what any of these things are. And they really will believe that these things can fire, you know, 300 rounds a minute and stuff like this. And you're just like... Ignorance is bliss, I guess. So I shouldn't be surprised that all these media talking heads just repeat the same lies over and over again. But here's the fact, and I'm gonna get to other stuff, don't worry, I'm sorry, I'm going too long. Here's the fact. Kyle, obviously there's been a divorce or something in his family, and his mom and dad don't live together. They live, what, about 17 miles apart, I think. Kyle works in Kenosha, he's a lifeguard. And the AR-15 was with his family there in Kenosha. And so, there's nothing illegal about him owning it, even if he owned one, carrying it. That's why the charge was dropped. Why it was ever even placed, I have no earthly idea. Whoever did that should be fired for being an idiot, but anyway. He was allowed to be carrying that long gun lots of people were on both sides that night He was trying to protect a business, which evidently today, you're supposed to, if you build up a business, you should just be willing to have it burned down at the first time of anyone being stupid, because that's what the whole thing was about. The entire protest was stupid. The police officer was cleared properly of any wrongdoing. And so you have, if you look at these people, look at the three people that were shot. They were all, they all have a record. Violent records and the one guy is a convicted pedophile. Oh, yay. They are now being made saints That's the left for you. It's great. So anyways Very soon you very quickly after all this happened he crossed state lines Yeah, so And that's what I'm talking about, is it was repeated so often that it communicated a lie without ever having to enunciate what the lie was. Why would representatives and government officials be saying he crossed state lines if there wasn't something illegal about crossing state lines? Well, there wasn't. There wasn't. Nothing at all, no charges ever made. And yet it was repeated so often that it communicated a falsehood that becomes a truth in many people's minds and continues to function that way. That's what I'm talking about. It's not just the Rittenhouse case, though it's all tied together. It's all part of the narrative type of situation. So listen to this, and it'll give you an idea of what I'm talking about. August 24th, Rittenhouse went up to the Kenosha area for his job as a lifeguard. Rittenhouse crossed eight lines into a community that was not his. My grandmother, my aunt, my uncle and cousins all live in the city of Kenosha. You know, you've got this young white kid defending the community that he's not even from. What's your father's name? Michael Rittenhouse. He lived in Kenosha. Good evening from New York. I'm Chris Hayes. Kyle Rittenhouse was just 17 years old when he drove across state lines to Kenosha, Wisconsin. The teenager drove from his home in Illinois. Approximately one mile to Wisconsin. Across state lines. Driving across state borders. He's driving across state lines. Across the state line. Across state lines. Across state lines. Across state lines. If you look at the Rittenhouse case, he crossed state lines. Drives up to events. Across state lines. Came across state lines. Kyle Rittenhouse, who traveled across state lines. Out of state. Out of his own state. Came across state borders. Whenever you have a situation where a 17-year-old is crossing state lines, uh, it's a white teenager. He crosses a state line, drives 30 minutes into Kenosha. Remember, he came across the line. He crossed state lines. He crossed state lines. He crossed state lines. He crossed state lines. Kyle Rittenhouse, who crossed state lines, came across. Across state lines. Crossed state lines. He went across the state lines. Cross state lines. Cross state lines and cross state lines. A 17 year old kid from out of state. He makes all cross state lines. Cross state lines. Cross state lines. Across state lines. Cross state lines. Went over state lines. Drove across state lines. He drove across state. Had his mother drive him across state lines from out of state. Say the line, Bart! The teenager traveled across state lines. Carl Rittenhouse traveled from his home in Illinois across the state line to Wisconsin. Drove to a different state. Drives up to the state. Again, drove across state lines. The state that he does not live in. He traveled there from out of state. He crossed state lines, meaning he traveled across state lines. The 17-year-old who crossed state lines. Now again, he drove from Illinois to Wisconsin. The 17-year-old from out of state who shows up to Kenosha. So there you go. And I'm sure we could have gone, they could have collected more and more and more. And it's just, we are getting a lesson in how and why we have to be critical thinkers. How we cannot be deceived by the mere repetition of authoritative sources. And that's what we're facing in this situation. It's an amazing thing. I'll just comment that justice was done. The thing that does concern me is that there was another trial going on of a black young man at the same time elsewhere who was also acquitted on the grounds of self-defense. If you If you think it is unchristian, and there are Christians who take a stance of pacifism to the point where they would say if someone tries to bash your head in with a skateboard, let them bash your head in with a skateboard. Now, there is a vast difference between suffering persecution for being a Christian and allowing your family or yourself to be harmed by thugs and cultural slime. Huge difference. When the Jewish man was descended upon by thieves on the road, on the way to Jerusalem, Jesus does not say, and it was good that he was dumb enough to be traveling alone and unarmed. There is nothing wrong in defending yourself against evildoers. That's different than taking up arms and creating some type of Christian militia to go off and take on the Muslims or somebody else. If you can't see what the difference is, I'm suggesting maybe you're not thinking very clearly. but it is the responsibility of a man to protect his wife and his children. And if that man has the opportunity of doing so effectively, then he should do so. And by the way, it is appropriate to protect personal property. If a mob starts coming down your driveway with torches and Molotov cocktails. Attacking your home by committing arson is attacking you with a deadly weapon. And to say that you have no right to defend your home and your family against that kind of a mob, civilization ends at that point. Civilization ends at that point. And what we saw in this trial was people on the left saying, you will not protect yourself. These mobs are our mobs. They're criminals. And we have put district attorneys in place in key jurisdictions who will never charge them with anything. So they are our new brown shirts. And if you don't know who the brown shirts were, they were the early Nazi thugs that got Hitler power in Germany. in the early 1930s. And so these new mobs, BLM, Antifa, they are the left's brown shirts. And this trial was meant to say, you will not defend yourself against these mobs if they want to beat you senseless. And you saw the meme. I don't, you know, I've wanted to find out that one guy early on the riots that was just, beaten to a pulp. And you see him just on the ground, and you can tell he's not unconscious, but his body's broken, there's blood flowing out from his head. I don't know if he survived or if he ever walked again or anything else. But the meme said, did not defend himself, did not defend himself. That's a picture of Kyle Rittenhouse, did defend himself. He's still alive. Where they are or not, don't know. But the idea is, yes, give in to lawlessness. Because it's our lawlessness. And they will allow it and promote it up to the point where they've accomplished everything they want, and then they will crush those people. And they will crush them mercilessly. Mercilessly. All you gotta do is see how it's been done in the past. The brown shirts had to be brought under control and had to be used to maintain order once the new order had been established. And that's how it happens in every communist revolution. You use the people to burn down businesses until the income of those businesses is needed by the state. And now you try that and you will be shot instantly. Trying to tell you where it's going. Trying to tell you, trying to tell you, trying to tell you. Okay. We have been looking at, very fairly and very thoroughly, a book by William Lane Craig on the subject of The Only Wise God. And part of this is to facilitate everyone understanding. There was a shift, by the way, right there. To facilitate everyone understanding the major differences that exist. between Reformed theology and Molinism in all forms of synergism. And I did hear Dr. Craig disputing that Molinism is synergistic, and I guess we have to define synergism because it is completely synergistic, it's foundationally synergistic, it's definitionally synergistic in its understanding of salvation anyways. or at least the application he's making of it. I suppose you could say it's such a narrow claim that you don't have to make those applications, but I don't think that works. Anyway, so some will remember, and I didn't go back because I know we did a program on this. I remember very clearly doing a program on this about seven years ago when a discussion took place. Paul Helm Dr. Paul Helm in London and William Lane Craig on Unbelievable. And I thought Paul Helm did a wonderful job and raised numerous cogent and important issues. And toward the end of the program, it was very, very interesting. Unfortunately, right when you'd be losing the focus of a lot of folks, was when the actual debate took place. The key issue of the debate was brought out right at, let me see here, I'm looking at it. Yeah, six minutes before the end of the program. So that's frequently how things work. Right toward the end of the program, the real issue came out. And I think this really helps us to, more accurately and fully understand exactly what Dr. Craig is saying in his book as we're reviewing it. We want to be accurate. I have been accused falsely of misrepresenting Dr. Craig on this very point. And I'm hoping in the future to challenge those who have accused me of those falsehoods to substantiate their statements. But that's a little bit down the road. So here is, right at the end of the program, Paul Helm, William Lane Craig discussing the issue. And I'll play it more than once, but I want you to hear exactly where this goes. Okay, so but as far as you're concerned this doesn't, I mean I think Paul's concern is that by there being worlds which are not feasible for God to choose that somehow undermines God's sovereignty because then it's suggesting... Well it weakens, it weakens sovereignty. You see the emphasis is now not on God's choosing me because he wanted me to be his child eternally and unconditionally and by his grace, but he's chosen a world. Okay. Okay and I happen to be part of that world. So you're sort of, you're a by-product of a world where he's trying to maximise the most number, say, of people. Well, whatever his conditions of feasibility are, there are certain worlds that are ruled out, that's clear, but coming, as it were, closer to the centre, what the conditions of feasibility are seems to me we couldn't possibly be clear on. That would have to remain a mystery. Nonetheless, his love for me is not, as it were, direct and personal. It's because i'm falling part of the world which is that the way we should realize he i don't i don't see that at all i wouldn't agree with that at all god loves each individual and wants that person to be saved and he will choose to create a world of individuals so it was the world isn't primary the individuals are primarily builds together a kind of world as you accumulate individuals but Now, the key statement is about to be uttered, but I want to chime in there and point out that I believe Dr. Helm was right. And when Dr. Craig says, I just don't see it at all, then he needs to hear more carefully what's being said. Paul Helm is saying, in light of the statement that God's decree is based upon middle knowledge, This mental knowledge does not come from God's will, that does not come from God's heart, does not come from God's desires. It just is. And the idea being that God envisions all feasible worlds, but actuates a world based upon some choice he has made, which is nowhere, of course, discussed in scripture. We have no way of knowing what it is. It's pure speculation no matter what we do. But let's say it's maximum number of people saved with minimum amount of evil. That means that there are not only individuals who cannot be saved, but that your role in that, if you are a saved person, your role in that is just you fit into that algorithm. And there might be other potential people who will never be created because they don't fit into how God wants to accomplish that. But their existence and middle knowledge is just as real as your existence and middle knowledge was before the decree. And so, it is true that this means that the specificity of election, of divine election in Reformed theology cannot be a part of the Molinistic scheme at all. Because the only way you can say that is, well, yeah, you can still have an elect, but they're elect because they were the ones that would fit into the scheme. And that's totally different than being they're the ones that God changed by his resurrection power. right? So, I get exactly what is being said there. So, but here's, ding ding ding, if you've struggled with Molinism, here it is. As you accumulate individuals, but what the Molinist does say that I think the Calvinist finds objectionable is that God is not in control of which subjunctive conditionals are true. Okay. He doesn't determine the truth value of the subjunctive conditionals. That's outside his control, and the Calvinist finds that objectionable. All right, so we are going to zero in on that in just a second, but I wanted you to hear it. Let me repeat it. What the Molinist does say, that the Calvinist does find objectionable, is that God is not in control of what subjunctive conditionals are true. He doesn't determine the truth value of these subjunctive conditionals, that's outside his control. All right? Now, what are subjunctive conditionals? That's what makes up middle knowledge. That's what Peter would do in this circumstance. That's the subjunctive conditional. And what he's saying is, God has no control over that. So who did? The man can't because it doesn't exist yet. This is where the whole, and this is what I was accused, you've misrepresented William Lane Craig. No, I haven't. This is where the card dealer comes in. God's got to deal with the cards he's been dealt. What are the cards he's been dealt? They're subjunctive conditionals. He didn't control them. He didn't define them. But they're true anyways, and they determine what he can do. Okay, so I did want to want you to hear this last section. I mean, the whole notion of middle knowledge as portrayed by Bill, his objection with the Calvinists, as I said at the beginning, he can, as it were, shunt all this stuff off into one or other of God's other two sources of knowledge. I think that's been a very helpful distinction to have at the end, actually, in terms of a real kind of point at which this obviously breaks in terms of the view of God for a Molinist and a Calvinist. So I think Justin found that to be useful as well. That's what he just said. That's where the distinction is to be found. And this is, as far as I can tell, this is the key, once again. What the Molinist does say that I think the Calvinist finds objectionable is that God is not in control of which subjunctive conditionals are true. He doesn't determine the truth value of these subjunctive conditionals. That's outside his control. That's outside his control. So here's the issue. If you've struggled, if you've just sort of put out on the side, this is, I think, the clearest statement that I've found so far. Subjunctive conditionals are those statements that say, in this situation, Peter would deny Christ. In this situation, you will turn right, not left. you will choose this person to marry and not that person to marry. These are subjunctive conditionals, and they have, as it said, truth value. They are true. But God's not in control of those subjunctive conditionals. He doesn't determine the truth value of these subjunctive conditionals. That's outside his control. That's not science control. And these subjunctive conditionals do not arise from his decree to create. Now, if you say, well, but if they're about creatures, then they have to arise from God's creative power because no creature exists apart from God's creative power. And I would say, of course, that's why theologians up to Melina did not have a middle knowledge. They did not see any need for a middle knowledge because they recognized that anything... See, middle knowledge envisions mankind as these entities that exist outside of their context. And we don't exist that way. The decisions that I make or that you make are influenced by any myriad of things. I don't exist as some subjunctive conditional. I exist as the son of a particular set of parents and a particular set of grandparents with particular siblings and certain neighbors in a certain culture, speaking a certain language at a certain time in history. And every single one of those things is an influence upon the decisions that I make. And every single one of those things might make it impossible to know what decisions I will make. Sometimes I surprise myself. And I'm pretty predictable. I mean, it wouldn't be too difficult for someone to predict where I'm going to go. But there are some times I surprise myself and everybody else in the process. But that can't happen if you have true subjunctive conditional knowledge of whatever I would do in any given situation. And you and I both know that you've been placed in the exact same situation and done different things. Sometimes two, three, four, five different things in the same situation. So the idea that there is only one thing you would do, I challenge that that results in any meaningful idea of human freedom at all. I mean, any Molinist who will use the old canard that we believe that human beings are just puppets, but then will turn around and say that there is a truth value to subjunctive conditionals that means you will always do the same thing in a given circumstance. Look in the mirror. You're the one with the puppet, not me. So you have to... keep all these things in mind that we are complex beings. Here's the next thing. I forget where I had this, but let me just point it out. And I was just thinking about this last evening, so I thought, let's discuss it. Mullinism... Mullinists as a group have a very weak anthropology. and a very weak doctrine of depravity and sin. And very often, you will hear them decrying the Reformed understanding of man's deadness and sin, man's slavery to sin, and all the associated things that go along with that. And there's a reason for that, because think about it. If you have The example that Dr. Craig uses in his book is you have middle knowledge, true subjunctive conditional about Peter denying Christ. Was Peter's denial of Christ sinful? Was Peter a fallen person? What is the relationship between middle knowledge and the federal headship of Adam. If federal headship is true, and Romans chapter 5 says it is, and if we are in Adam and fall in Adam That means, as Romans chapter 8 says, that we cannot even submit ourselves to law of God, do what is pleasing in God's sight. That means there's a whole realm of possible choices that are precluded. We can't do those things, but then when we're regenerated, we can. How does middle knowledge deal with that? How can you have truth value to subjunctive conditional statements about one human being that is true both when he's unregenerate and when he then is regenerate. Because the point of regeneration in their theology is up to the individual, right? So, wouldn't middle knowledge change? dependent upon the actions of the individual so that now there are choices available to the regenerate person that were not available to the unregenerate person? How do you have, from whence derives this middle knowledge in light of the doctrine of original sin, the federal headship of Adam, and the doctrine of regeneration? Now remember, the guy that dreamed this up was Roman Catholic. And so there are gaping holes in his soteriology. There are gaping holes in his scripturology, in his sources of authority. So how do you make that work? I don't know, but obviously, What I'm saying is a recognition of God's absolute sovereignty and freedom in the election of an undeserving people, not based upon something that literally exists outside of God. If it's outside of his control, that's outside his control. But since the human beings don't exist yet, it's outside their control. because they haven't been put into that circumstance, because the circumstances depend upon the decree of God. See what happens when you start trying? And really, when you listen to the Molinists, most of them will admit and will recognize that when they talk about Scripture, their only goal is to say that Molinism can be made amenable to, consistent to, not completely contradictory to scriptural statements, not that it derives its essence from scripture. In fact, I think most Molinists, honestly, if they were just to be straight up honest with us, would say these are not issues that can be addressed scripturally. Scripture just does not address this stuff. And that's where I say, oh, but it does. Oh, but it does. And so if you would start with the decree of God, if you would start by asking yourself the question, all right, I will tell of the decree of Yahweh is what the psalmist says. What decree of Yahweh? And once you dive into that biblically, it involves God's freely expressing his desire to glorify himself in how he works in human history. So, God specifically chose Joseph to function in the role that he did in bringing the people into bondage in slavery in Egypt. And to save that line, the line that he had promised Abraham would be the line through which the Messiah would come. He saved that line by putting them in slavery in Egypt. He glorified himself in that fashion. That's his decree. He's working that out. It's not that, well, that's the feasible world where those individuals, and it's a limited number of individuals when you think about it, those, you know, God's choices would be extremely limited once you factor in prophecy. Because once God makes promises through Abraham, God's, the only feasible worlds that God can create are the ones where that line that has now been prophesied is maintained. Do you have any idea how many lines in human history have been wiped out by all sorts of things? war and famine and flood and disease and everything else. Well, he's in control of all those things because in Molinism, he controls every single aspect of everything. It is absolute, complete, providential control of every circumstance. Why? So that mankind will only freely do. what he does. Of course, you only freely do what he does because God puts him in a situation knowing what he's going to do. I'm sorry, I don't consider, the vast majority of people who are advocates of autonomy find that to be an extremely shallow version of autonomy. I'm sorry? Oh, it's a totally stacked deck. Of course it is. But, be it as it may, the point is, once you have prophecy functioning, the number of worlds is constricted greatly because you have to make sure that that one line, that one family continues on. And God was utterly free to do that in the way that He chose to do so, to glorify Himself. And isn't it interesting, the plagues on Egypt were plagues that demonstrated the supremacy of Yahweh over the gods of Egypt. And that was purposeful. That was God expressing His eudachia, the kind intention of His will. But in Molinism, that was just the best feasible way of making that happen. And there might have been other feasible ways, but it wouldn't fit the algorithm of most saved and we don't know. It's all guesses. It's completely guesses. So, once you get into the details, once you... See, Molinism exists out here. It is a philosophical construct. It is not derived from Scripture. The only attempt is to try to make it seem consistent with Scripture, but no one can really argue that Molina was studying the Bible. and came up with this type of stuff. Molina was studying the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and the teachings of the Reformers, and he was under command to find a way to shortcut the Reformation. That's where this came from. And so, it exists out here. And once you try to The farther, and I think this is why most Molinists don't even bother, they do a couple verses and say, see, it's not contradictory, we could view it in this way, but it's not, this isn't really where it comes from, but it has great theological value and insight. That's the argument, that's the statement, that's what's being said. Because they recognize if you really try to make this fit and put it into biblical history and use it in that way, the result is a complete catastrophe because it doesn't work. Because you have, and for most of them, it's hidden. That's where it wasn't hidden. That's where it was straightforward. But that's the necessary assertion. In mere Molinism, it's still there. As long as you assert that middle knowledge exists and you define it as true subjunctive conditionals that are not determined by God. Now, you may not even get there, may not even use that language, but if that's what you mean by middle knowledge, then you're stuck with it. There's no place for you to go. And this for me, you know, Paul Helm was right. This is, well, it was William Lane Craig that was right. He's the one who said, here it is again. What the Molinist does say that I think the Calvinist finds objectionable. Bingo. Thank you, Bill. That's exactly the point. This is the issue. All the rest of the stuff that you get into and You know, it's necessary to define the categories and you got to do some of the historical stuff about natural and free knowledge. And so you have some people because what middle knowledge middle of what, you know, you've got to do all that stuff so that people have the context. But once you once you get it all out on the table, there is the issue right there. And that's what we were talking about. We talked about the card dealer. Because if God is not in control of which subjunctive conditionals are true, the card dealer issue was, who is? Who determined that? Because we read straight from Bill's book, God's decree is based upon and delimited by, those are the terms, based upon, delimited by, middle knowledge. Middle knowledge is made up of these true subjunctive conditionals. Where do they come from? where they come from. And you end up, if you want to see spinning faster and faster and faster and faster, just stay focused on that issue. Okay, I'm not going to be distracted from this. That's what we got to talk about right there. That's absolutely key. And I think that that particular assertion really, really did help with that. So, with that in mind, just one last thing and here we'll wrap up. In the last section we looked at in the book, let's apply what we've talked about today. For example, God knew that Peter, if he were to exist and be placed in a certain circumstance to deny Christ three times, by a free decision of his will, God then chose to create one of those possible worlds. How does Peter's fallen state, regenerate state, influence of sin, influence of sin of others, how does that impact any of this? How does the presence of the Holy Spirit in a believer's life? That just struck me. Think about, this just hit me, so let's think it through live on the air. Can the Spirit of God function in a believer's life in such a way as to cause you to make decisions that you would never make otherwise? Or, think about yourself. Given the presence of the Spirit in your life now, let's say you were converted at 25. and you sowed your seeds as a young man, and now you are deeply convicted of your need for fidelity to your wife, and you recognize that the reason you've been faithful to your wife is because the Holy Spirit of God in your life, right? How can you have, prior to the decree to create and to redeem, How can you have true subjunctive conditional knowledge of what someone will do in any given circumstance when that person lives part of their life spiritually dead and a person lives part of their life spiritually alive indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God? Will not that person make completely different decisions in light of the presence of the Spirit. And is there a Christian who will look me in the eye and say, oh no, we can't have the Spirit of God acting in such a way as to change what we would do. We need to be autonomous at all times. I don't want that autonomy. I want spiritual leadership. I want the Spirit of God to smack me upside the head and say, wake up. Don't follow the world, that's the way of death. I want the Spirit of God to strengthen me to make the right decisions and do the right things, don't you? Are you willing to sacrifice your philosophical constructs so as to have the Spirit's guidance and indeed control Yeah, control in your life? Hmm. So, and then we emphasized this before, by a free decision of his will, God then chose to create one of those possible worlds, not to create Peter in that way. This is what Paul Helm was trying to say. And he did say it, but I'm just making application here. We've never communicated. So Paul, if you ever watch this, thought you did a great job. Thank you. And appreciate what you've done in your writings over the years. Too bad in all the time. You know, did we meet in London? I've been there so many times. Maybe we did. If we have, I've forgotten and I apologize. But anyway, what he was trying to say is the object of God's freedom becomes so limited that it's no longer sovereignty. That's why he's saying it's a diminishment because God is choosing to create worlds, not expressing His glory in the creation of individuals in time who will do what the decree says they will do without making them puppets. And once we finish the review, I really want to, again, emphasize, I don't and I still don't understand why Molinists can't hear this. There are a number of Molinists who can't. But I've said over and over again, the greatest refutation of the puppet argument is Jesus. And I know one Molinist, I have no idea what Christmas has to do with this. It has to do with the fact that God entered into human flesh. Were there true conditional subjunctive statements about what Jesus would do? He was a man, wasn't he? And if God has from some other source that he is not in control of which subjunctive conditionals are true, he doesn't determine the truth value of these subjunctive conditionals, that's outside his control, was Jesus truly a man? Did Jesus truly interact with other men? then are there true subjunctive conditionals about what Jesus would do as a man? Now, it is interesting. It is interesting. I wonder if this has anything to do with why Bill Craig is a neo-apollinarian. Why? What's apollinarianism? Well, you have, in the hypostatic union, in the orthodox doctrine, you have the divine and the human natures. In perfect balance, there is no mixture of the two to where Jesus is 50% one, 50% of the other. What's that called? Eutychianism. That's Eutychianism. There is no separation of the two. so that they are no longer in one person, Nestorianism. Nestorius probably didn't believe that, but let's not get into that right now. And there is no removal of the human, the true human aspect of mind and soul and replacement of that by the logos or by the spiritual aspect of the divine nature, so that he's not truly and fully human. Apollinarianism. And Bill Craig is a Neo-Apollinarian. So, if you hold this view, was that in any way influenced by middle knowledge? By this objection? I don't know. I don't know, but that's very interesting to think about. Very interesting to think about, indeed. Well, anyway, I have now made everyone... Everyone's reaching for the Advil, the Tylenol, and everything else right now. I'm sorry about that. But I heard that at the end of the Paul Helm discussion on Unbelievable, and I just thought it was extremely important. What the Molinist does say, that the Calvinist does find objectionable, is that God is not in control of which subjunctive conditionals are true. He doesn't determine the truth value of these subjunctive conditionals. That's outside his control. That is the essence of human autonomy in Molinism. That's where it snuck in. That's where it's... And there are Molinists who have never even thought about this. They've just bought a simpler version, and they've never even gotten down to this point of going, What is the origin? If God's not in control of it, and it's a truth that then constrains and delimits the actions of God, where'd it come from? That's why I say I was in no way, shape, or form, in light of his own words, misrepresenting Bill Craig, when I focused upon the car dealer analogy, because this is what he was saying. That's one way of saying, time to finish up. Oh, yes. Yes, so, um, yeah, and this January 16th, 2014, uh, was, so I assume there was a program. Yeah. So if you want to go back and, um, hear what, uh, we said back, uh, when this first aired, uh, then January 16th, but that was right afterwards because I think Uh, that discussion took place. Yeah, this is, uh, the discussion took place and unbelievable on January 4th, it aired on January 4th, 2014. So 12 days later, um, we, uh, we were, we were talking about it, but I doubt that I focused in on that. Um, I've, I've done more reading lately. Yeah, yeah, so if you want to go back January 16, 2014, we can expand upon some of these things. All right. Especially with what I said in the first half hour. This is probably the last one. It's been nice having you listening to the dividing line we are on Odyssey already if you want to look over there and and Catch stuff because that's probably where we're gonna be after making the comments. I did the first half program though I'll be honest with you straightforward. You know why we're still here because we're not monetized That's why The bots are concerned about where the money goes And I think that's why we're still here. Huh? So years ago, I read their terms. I know, I know. And I went, we don't want to do this. I know, I know, I know. But I think their concern is primarily money. And so that's why they do the things they're doing. So anyways, we'll see if we're here next time. I don't know when it's going to be. because it's Thanksgiving week and I'm supposed to leave on Friday and so we will see. But keep an eye on the app and Lord willing, we will be back. God bless.