We good? Good evening. Good evening. I know some of you have waited about an hour to begin. So it's about 7 o'clock. So let's begin. Good evening. Welcome to our debate on the question tonight. Is Molinism Biblical? I'm Evan McClanahan. I'm the pastor of First Lutheran here. And I'll be the moderator for tonight's debate. Again, thank you for coming out. I know it's crowded. It's a sellout crowd. So I appreciate your patience in that regard. A few logistics. If you're in need of a bathroom, go next door. Oh. We're OK. If you're in need of a bathroom, you can go to these doors behind me. But hopefully you've already gone, and you can stay seated for the next two hours. But there's a hallway behind me, and there are bathrooms there. We want to be as hospitable as we can. Bios for each speaker. I think you're well aware of both speakers for tonight. They are in the program. So in the interest of time, I'll leave you to read those. Just know that Dr. James White is the bald white guy with the beard, and Dr. Tim Stratton is the bald white guy with the beard. I mean, they are brothers, and they could be brothers. Both speakers are going to be using this somewhat antiquated screen here. So I'm going to be turning off a few lights, so don't be startled when that happens. And there's going to be some transition between each time for speaking. We will have a brief reception afterwards if you want to meet the speakers, but I'm going to say in advance, please keep your time very short in respecting a very travel-weary, debate-prepared speakers tonight. But it'll be in the education building next door. Best way to get there, go out the door you came in, walk around to either door to the education building behind the large magnolia tree. Reasonable Faith will have a table in the room far that way down the hall. Accordance Software will have a table and books in the room closer this way in the education building. I also work with a group called Theology on Tap, so there's some material there if you want to pick it up. If you like theological debate, conversation, it's every other month. Less formal than this, but still fun. So if you're in Houston and you want to come out for that, grab a brochure for that. Our format should be in the program, but 20 minutes opening remarks for each speaker. Dr. Stratton's going to go first because he's answering in the affirmative on the question, is Molinism biblical? Eight minute rebuttals each. There will be 40 minutes of cross-examination total. That's 10 minutes, 10 minutes, 10 minutes, 10 minutes. Five-minute closings, then we're going to have 20 minutes approximately for Q&A. We're not going to get to all of the questions, so if I don't choose yours, it's nothing personal. Probably, I'm going to go for the most legible. So if you want your question answered, it needs to be readable. And I'm going to go back and forth between each speaker as I would ask the speaker to give about a one-minute answer with about a 30-second rejoinder. I'm going to pick those up. This is for my volunteers as well. I'm going to pick those up. after the second 10-minute cross-examination. That'll give me about 30 minutes to find good questions. So if you have a question going in, go ahead and feel free to write it down. We'll pick those up in the middle, right in the middle of the cross-examination section. With those formalities behind us, as both of our speakers are Christian, that's not always the case in a debate, but it is the case tonight, I would like to offer a word of prayer. Let us pray. Heavenly Father, we give you thanks that we can gather in freedom to consider your glory and might, your nature and will. Give us humility to learn that we might know you better, serve you better, and work together to bring about a better world. Bless our speakers, James and Timothy, and our audience, that the truth would be magnified and that truth would lead us to you. In the name of Jesus, we pray. Amen. I would ask our first speaker, Dr. Stratton, to come forward at this time. You may welcome. Good evening. To everyone watching this debate, thank you for taking theology so seriously. And to Dr. James White, it's an honor to have this conversation with you. Thank you, sir. Well, James and I disagree on tonight's topic, but we have two things in common. We are brothers in Christ, and we never have a bad hair day. Well, although this is an in-house debate, outsiders, as Paul refers to them in Colossians 4-5, are watching closely. If White's view of God prevails, atheists are justified in their non-belief. This is because, in White's view, God is not merely the author of evil, but he causes and determines every single evil thought and action. Yes, on White's view, God actually makes evil happen by way of cause and effect. This leads to what is known as the problem of evil, the greatest objection raised against the knowledge of God. If Molinism is true, however, the problems of evil are defeated. So this debate matters. Let's get down to business. Is Molinism biblical? Before answering that question, what does it mean for a doctrine to be biblical? As James has written, the only folks who are truly biblical are those who believe all the Bible has to say on a given topic. Obviously, a doctrine can be explicitly taught in Scripture. However, doctrines can also be inferred from the biblical data if, one, the doctrine is consistent with and does not contradict Scripture, and two, the biblical data supports the core tenets of the doctrine. Since we're examining Scripture to find logical contradictions, we must presuppose logic and the rules of reason before examining the text. By assuming logic and reason, we can infer truths about God that are not explicitly taught in Scripture. An example of this is the Trinity. The Trinity, while not explicitly taught in Scripture, is both consistent with the whole of Scripture and backed by the biblical data around God's nature. such as the divinity of Christ, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and how they share the attributes of God. In this sense, although the word Trinity is found nowhere in Scripture, the concept of the Trinity is biblical. For similar reasons, if the Trinity is biblical, then Molinism is biblical. What is meant by Molinism? It's the conjunction of propositions. God possesses middle knowledge and humans possess libertarian freedom. What's middle knowledge? According to Kirk MacGregor, it's simply God's knowledge of all things that would happen in every possible set of circumstances an omnipotent God could create. What's libertarian freedom? It refers to a person's choice, action, evaluation, or judgment that is not causally determined by something or someone else. Tyson James puts it this way, libertarian freedom is the ability to choose such that antecedent conditions are insufficient to causally determine one's choice. These definitions of libertarian freedom hold whether or not there are alternative possibilities. However, If one does possess opportunities to choose among alternative possibilities in the real world, then one is not determined by something or someone else. With biblical data in mind, we can also understand libertarian freedom in this manner. The opportunity to exercise an ability to choose between at least two options, each of which is compatible with one's nature in a circumstance where the prior conditions are insufficient to causally determine the agent's choice. That's a fancy way of saying the ability to do otherwise. Determinism. The idea that antecedent conditions are causally sufficient for an effect, aka causal determinism. Exhaustive divine determinism. Ed. The idea that God determines all effects, especially all things about humanity, which would include all desires, thoughts, beliefs, actions, behaviors, evaluations, and judgments. It's important to note that antecedent conditions are either sufficient or insufficient to causally necessitate all effects. Compatibilism, the thesis held by many Calvinists that some kind of freedom and or moral responsibility are compatible with determinism. With Ed in mind, compatibilism is the idea that God determines all of a person's desires, thoughts, beliefs, actions, behaviors, evaluations, and judgments, but somehow the person is still free and or morally responsible for how God made them think and act. Predestination, the divine foreordaining of all that will happen. To clarify, both Calvinists and Molinists affirm predestination via God's decree prior to actual creation. The disagreement between Calvinists like James and Molinists like me is not over predestination of all created reality, but rather how God predestines all created reality. With that in mind, I'll provide four key contentions as to why all biblically faithful Christians should affirm Molinism. As an analytic theologian, I'll appeal to the careful definitions I just provided, along with the God-given tools of logic and reason to make a case from the biblical text. I will also demonstrate, since Dr. White says that only God has libertarian freedom, that his view of exhaustive divine determinism, EDD, or Ed, not only leads to absurdities, but also provides a death blow to the trustworthiness of Scripture and any assurance of salvation. Indeed, I contend that Molinism is biblical and Ed is not biblical. Consider my argument. If Scripture implies both A, that humans occasionally possess libertarian freedom, and B, all human activity is predestined before creation, then Scripture implies Molinism. Two, Scripture implies both A and B. Three, therefore, Scripture implies Molinism. This syllogism is valid, so if the premises can be supported by Scripture, then any Bible-believing Christian rejecting Molinism for any reason seems to be in opposition to what the Scriptures teach. Tonight, I'll defend four key contentions that, if true, demonstrate why my argument passes. Contention number one. The doctrine that humans occasionally possess libertarian freedom is supported by the biblical data. 1 Corinthians 10, 13 through 15. No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability. But with the temptation, he will also provide a way of escape that you may be able to endure it. Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to sensible people. Judge for yourselves what I say. The context has everything to do with the definition of libertarian freedom. Since God commands us to reason together, Isaiah 118, consider the following. If Christians possess the opportunity to exercise an ability to choose among a range of options, each compatible with their regenerated nature at a given moment, then Christians possess libertarian freedom. Two, at the moment of temptation, Christians possess the opportunity to exercise an ability to choose between giving into temptation or taking the way of escape God promises to provide. Three, therefore, Christians possess libertarian freedom. Moreover, Paul follows this all-important verse with another comment heavily implying libertarian freedom. Think about 1 Corinthians 10, 15. I speak as to sensible people. Judge for yourselves what I say. If someone or something other than you determines all of your judgments, then you cannot judge for yourself on any matter. If how I guide my thinking is ultimately determined by and under the control of something or someone else, then I do not have the control condition required for rational responsibility. To support my claim regarding 1 Corinthians 10.15, consider the following. 1. If God determines white to affirm false belief X in the actual world, then white does not possess the opportunity to exercise an ability to infer a better or true belief about X in the actual world. 2. If Ed is true, then God causally determines all Christians, including White, to affirm false theological beliefs. No one's theology is infallible. 3. If God determines all Christians to affirm some false theological beliefs, then White stands in no position to know which of his theological affirmations are true and which of his affirmations are false. If White does not stand in a position to rationally affirm his theological beliefs, then White possesses a defeater against, a reason to doubt his theological beliefs. 5. If White possesses reason to doubt his theological beliefs, then White cannot rationally affirm his theological beliefs. 6. Therefore, if Ed is true, White cannot rationally affirm his theological beliefs. Now this argument demonstrates that if Ed is true, then it's impossible to rationally infer true beliefs and judge for yourselves as Paul commands in 1 Corinthians 10 15. No, if God determines you to affirm a false belief, there's nothing you can do about it. No matter how hard you try, you cannot judge for yourself and infer the truth. That's absurd. Moreover, if Ed is true and you cannot judge for yourselves, then you cannot rationally affirm theological claims of knowledge. Inferring true beliefs over false ones and rationally affirming claims of knowledge are vital attributes of a rationally responsible person. This active use of reason is illusory if Ed is true, and thus, if Ed is true, then humanity is not rationally responsible for anything we passively think and are ultimately determined to believe. According to White's ed view, you are nothing but a passive cog, as John DePoe says, at the mercy of the whims of a deity of deception who determines all people to affirm false theological beliefs. Now if the author of scripture is a deity of deception, knowing the original Greek does not help. Why trust what was written in the original languages if the author is untrustworthy? Moreover, if a god of mischief assured you of salvation, do you really have assurance of salvation? On the Molinist view, however, God is not a deity of deception or a god of mischief. No, God is a maximally great being and you are a free thinker who can take thoughts captive, 1 Corinthians 10, 5, before they take you, Colossians 2, 8. Accordingly, you are not a passive cog at the mercy of the whims of a deity of deception. No, if Molinism is true, you are an active and rational agent created in the likeness of a supernatural and maximally great God by His grace. God has revealed truth and desires all people to know the truth. First Timothy 2.4, not just all kinds of people, but all people. God does not determine every human to affirm false theological beliefs. Think about it, and as Paul would say, judge for yourselves what I say. The Apostle Paul, the same guy who wrote Romans 9, is clear that regenerated Christians possess a strong sense of libertarian freedom. Moses goes further and explains that even the unregenerate have the freedom to choose among alternative options. Consider some highlights from Moses in Deuteronomy 30, 10 through 20. Now what I'm commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. No, the word is very near you. It's in your mouth and in your heart so that you may obey it. See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. This day, I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life so that you and your children may live. Moses commands the Israelites to make a choice between alternative possibilities, to follow God or not. They have a range of options from which to choose, between life and death, between blessings and curses. And Moses pleads with them to choose life, making it clear that they actually possess the opportunity and ability to make this choice. It's up to them and not determined by things external to them. Moses is clear that they possess the ability to do it and that it's not even too difficult for them to make this choice in the actual circumstance in which they find themselves. He says that you may do it. This implies that you can do it. This is clear biblical support for libertarian freedom. In a nutshell, I've offered multiple biblical texts from Paul and Moses supporting the idea that humans possess libertarian freedom. Indeed, these passages of scripture supporting libertarian freedom are much clearer than any supposed proof text for exhaustive divine determinism. To counter my first contention, Dr. White must exegete from scripture that all these folks described in scripture really only had one option compatible with their natures in these specific circumstances and that God predestines all things via determinism. Well, now that libertarian freedom has been shown to be supported by scripture, let's move to contention number two. The doctrine of divine predestination is supported by the biblical data. I don't need to share all the biblical data supporting exhaustive predestination in tonight's debate because both Dr. White and I affirm this much. The passage, however, that demands the most attention is found in a letter written by Paul. In Ephesians 1-4, we read of something that happened prior to Genesis 1-1. God shows us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before him. Paul makes it clear that God predestined according to his purpose who works all things after the counsel of his will, Ephesians 1.11. Accordingly, God doesn't merely predestine some things or all kinds of things, but all things work according to God's plan before creation. Paul, with his words predestined, purpose, and counsel of his will, describes what Abbott concludes. The words all things seems to imply an exhaustive view of predestination. Well, this is exactly what the Molinist affirms. Bottom line, the Bible clearly teaches two things. A, humans possess libertarian freedom, and B, human activity is predestined before creation. So why does scripture imply Molinism? Contention number three. It's logically impossible to causally determine a libertarian free choice. Recall the precise definitions offered at the beginning of my speech. With these definitions in mind, it's just as impossible for God to determine a libertarian free choice as it would be for God to create a married bachelor. Ed entails that prior conditions are sufficient to causally determine all effects, including all human thoughts, beliefs, choices, actions, sins, and evils. And libertarian freedom entails that prior conditions are insufficient for these things. So if Ed is true, libertarian freedom is false. And if libertarian freedom is true, ed is false. So my third contention is true by definition. This brings us to contention number four. Middle knowledge is the only way to predestine a libertarian free choice. Since a responsible reading of scripture implies that all things are predestined prior to creation, and that some things are free in a libertarian sense, and since it's logically impossible to causally determine a libertarian free choice by definition, the only option left to consider is the middle knowledge option. But why is it the case that Molinism is a biblical inference just because these contentions have been affirmed? Consider the fact that if predestination prior to creation is true, then there seems to be only two ways for God to ensure it. God could determine everything to occur exactly as predestined, no libertarian freedom, or God could use his middle knowledge to ensure what he has predestined, by creating a world in which he knew how free creatures would freely choose. But remember, we've already examined scripture implying libertarian freedom. Indeed, Moses made it clear that the Israelites had the power and opportunity to choose either life or death, and that it wasn't even too hard for them, that they could do it. Ezekiel 33 5 and 11 implies both God's middle knowledge and libertarian freedom, as it exemplifies the fact that God does not desire the death of the wicked and invites the wicked to choose otherwise. If they had heeded the warning, they would have saved themselves. This implies middle knowledge. Say to them, as surely as I live, declares the sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways. Why will you die, people of Israel? But if James is correct, God is imploring them to do something they cannot do. It's like God commanding a person that he determined to be born without arms to play basketball and shoot a left-handed layup, and then warning them of the consequences if they don't. No, these people do not have to die. They were not determined by God to reject God. That's absurd and an irresponsible reading of the text. Since scripture affirms libertarian freedom, we know that God does not predestine all things by way of determinism. Middle knowledge is the only option. So, with my four contentions in place, it seems rational and responsible to conclude what my original argument proposes, that the Bible teaches both libertarian freedom and predestination. There is and holding to Molinism. Indeed, thinking logically about all the biblical data, it seems to me that Molinism is the most biblically faithful and logically consistent view of God's sovereignty. To counter my case, Dr. White must do more than cite scripture Molinists already affirm. He must show that either, one, the Bible precludes Molinism, or two, that it's invalid to infer a view from scripture. Since his own published work, however, infers concepts not explicitly taught in scripture White seems to concede the second point. This leaves him with the monumental challenge of showing that the Bible precludes Molinism by dealing with my four contentions. That's what Dr. White's got to do. If he does anything to the contrary, don't be distracted. No matter what approach White takes, ask yourself, is the Bible teaching us that God commands us to do one thing, but God determines us to do something else? Does God expect us to make decisions that we are incapable of making? Or does the Bible expect us to make decisions because we can do it just as Moses says? I challenge Dr. White to produce one single Bible verse or passage in support of Ed that cannot be just as easily or better explained by Molinism. So in closing, let me reiterate that non-Christians are watching. This is important because if White's view is true, that only God has libertarian freedom, then the problem of evil provides justification for the atheist non-belief since God actually makes every instance of evil happen by way of cause and effect. This includes Satan's rebellion, the fall of man, Hitler's holocaust, and as Dr. White has previously affirmed, this even includes child rape. If Molinism is true, however, God does not cause and determine these things. Indeed, if Molinism is true, all the problems of evil are defeated just like that. Well, good evening. You can take a breath now. I think we're all holding our breath. Brother Stratton speaks very, very quickly. And I don't know about you, but I was within 20 feet of the screen, and the font was too small for me. So I have no idea what was just said. But. So. Is Molinism biblical? The weight is upon Brother Stratton to demonstrate that by fully explaining to you what Molinism is actually saying, not proving his case by attacking Calvinism, which is what you just heard. That's not a proof of the case. I'm going to prove my case by attacking that over there, because mine isn't the only position out there. That doesn't actually prove anything. So let's try to get back to what a meaningful argument would look like. Let's define biblical. In the strictest sense, to be biblical is to be derived from the necessary teaching of scripture by the sound methods of exegesis and interpretation. So, for example, it was said the doctrine of the Trinity. Well, why do we know that is a biblical doctrine? Because the Bible teaches there is only one true God, there are three divine persons, and the equality of those divine persons. And so you have direct, consistent exegesis. Now most Molinists admit that the system is not, in fact, a necessary result of accurate biblical exegesis. Instead, the argument generally is that Molinism is consistent with the overall tenor of Scripture, while not being derived directly therefrom. I submit that given Molinism's overarching claims, it cannot be merely consistent with, but must be derived from the text, and that in its key elements, and the key element was not even attempted to be asserted in what we just heard. I'll have to get to that in my presentation. What are the key issues? Three fundamental pillars to the proposed system of Molinism. Number one, the existence of true subjunctive conditionals, the so-called counterfactuals of human freedom, that delimit and determine what possible worlds God can actualize. That's a key assertion. That should have taken 10 minutes of the opening presentation, but it didn't. Secondly, the denial of the Reformed doctrine of effective sovereign grace, whereby the Spirit of God must raise the dead, enslaved, rebel sinner to spiritual life, that is, regeneration, that is, taking out the heart of stone and the gracious granting of the heart of flesh. And third, the assertion of libertarian free will, which we did hear a lot of, or complete human autonomy in reference to the concept that human actions are not only free from the constraint of the divine creative decree, but must be free so as to remove any culpability for human evil from God. That is, Molinism asserts incompatibility. We certainly did hear that. Now, the heart of the theological claim of Molinism is its assertion of middle knowledge. Logically placed between God's natural knowledge and his free knowledge, which is why it's called middle knowledge, middle knowledge is the claim that God knows what every person would do in any given circumstance. While many might grant such a claim, as stated, this is insufficient. The central claim that energizes Molinism is that this knowledge comes before God decrees to create any person, and vitally, does not come from God's will, His intention, or His purpose. Further, God cannot alter or change this knowledge. This means, on the Molinus position, the choices of as yet undecreed, uncreated persons are already fixed, separately from any other consideration. God knows if he makes anyone, even though he's not decreed to do so as yet, exactly what they will do, but not because of his will or how he creates them. The problems of such a claim are many, but in brief. Where does this knowledge arise from? Since in Molinism, this knowledge is the very basis that determines what worlds God can actualize and which he cannot. Humans' choices are the result of a myriad of internal and external factors, all of which flow from God's decree, God's intention, God's purpose. So how can you know what human actions are going to be before God decrees to create the human being and put them in the situations that he would put them into? It is on the basis of this concept of middle knowledge that Molinism asserts that there are possibly certain people who could never be saved, even if God desired to do so. And certain worlds God could never create, again, even if he wanted to do so. This is a denial of God's fundamental freedom. No scriptural writer, no prophet, nor apostle ever mentioned, considered, or operated on the basis of such a theory. All subjunctive statements about what people would do, such as in the case of David and Kilah in 1 Samuel 23, concern God's knowledge of what He has already decreed and created. So when you find places in scripture where you have subjunctive statements being made, that's after God has already created this universe. And certainly, he knows the hearts of all men that he has created very, very well and knows exactly what they would do. That's not middle knowledge in any way, shape, or form. The concept of uncreated, inalterable true subjunctive conditionals of human actions, separate from and outside the will of God as Creator, is utterly unbiblical in both the strict and the broader senses, and is, in fact, in opposition to clear and compelling biblical truth. The reality of regeneration. Molinism posits true knowledge of human beings separate from not only the conditioning reality of God's divine decree, which establishes all the contexts in which we live, but from the biblically mandated need for regeneration, the granting of spiritual life, the freeing from the slavery of sin. The Bible teaches that the unregenerate cannot submit to the law of God, Romans 8, 7. Well, this is the delight of the regenerate person. So clearly, what a regenerate person would do in certain circumstances is different than an unregenerate person. Yet, regeneration is a divine act performed by Jesus, John 8, 36, the Son will make you free, through the Spirit of God. So how can there be knowledge of what person X will do if you do not have the issue of regeneration right up front, which is a part of God's decree? That means it can't be middle knowledge. That's how the Bible functions. Clearly, then, the regeneration of God's elect people is a part of the decree of God and is in no way limited by nor determined by middle knowledge. Hence, the Bible's teaching on the fallenness of man makes Molinism utterly unbiblical. Likewise, the freedom of election directly related to this point is the biblical reality that God's decree of election flows not from considerations of possible worlds based upon subjunctive conditionals related to human choices, but solely from the eudaicheia, the kind intention of His will, Ephesians 1.4, this is the source of God's decree. It is his kind intention, his good intention, and he is free. He's not simply looking at data provided to him from somebody else, from something mythically called middle knowledge. It's flowing from his own will. God's will determines the elect, not middle knowledge. And then we have the assertion, as we clearly heard, of categorical human freedom. Central to the claims of Molinism is the assertion of categorical human freedom of choice, which assumes in its very definition a denial of the prior and conditioning reality of the divine decree. There cannot be a decree that determines the fabric of time. But the human freedom revealed in Scripture is not categorical, but conditional. What does that mean, specifically? The Bible presents God's exhaustive divine decree as coming freely from His will, and man's actions and decisions in time being free in the sense of creaturely freedom. Man acts and is judged on the basis of his desires, not on the basis of possessing categorical freedom or an ability to alter God's will or a possession of a knowledge of what God's decree is all about in the first place. None of that is required for the judgment standards that have already been given to mankind. So with that said, this is a debate about what is biblical. So I want you to consider with me just four passages of scripture so that you can think with me biblically about the claims that are being made. Now, I realize, especially if you have not delved deeply into the nature of the claim of middle knowledge, that this can be very difficult to follow. I recognize that. But I would encourage you to stick with us here so that you can understand what is actually being positively asserted, but so far has been given zero evidence in defense of the assertion. I'd like you to think with me about Isaiah chapter 10. Now, in the olden days, when I'd say that, I'd hear rustling of pages. Now all I hear is phones being turned on. But in Isaiah chapter 10, you have a situation where God brings Assyria down against Israel as the rod of his wrath. But then the scripture tells us this is not what Assyria intends to do. They're not doing this to serve God. Instead, they are very arrogant, and they think that they are able to come and to do these things, and they're very prideful. And so God uses the Assyrians to punish the Israelites in fulfillment of his own word, Deuteronomy 28 and 29. And then he says, when I am finished with my work, I will punish the haughty heart, the fruit of the heart of the king of Assyria. Well, wait a minute. God said he was bringing them down. And God said that he was using them even though they did not intend to do what God wanted to do. And then God says, I will judge them. On what basis? On the basis that they're knowing what his divine decree was? Of course not. It was on the basis of the desires of their heart. That's the foundation of judgment, not some form of libertarian freedom. They were being used by God to do what he intended to do and had chosen to do from eternity past, but they were judged on the basis of the desires of their hearts. And they're not just puppets. These aren't just these neutral, benign beings, and God says, now think evil thoughts. No, God is normally having to restrain man in his evil thoughts. God had to keep Joseph's brothers from killing him to accomplish his purpose. God restrains evil. He's not forcing anybody to do evil. That was presented to you. That is a canard. It is a straw man. It is an inaccurate and misrepresentation of the other side. But the key thing to remember in Isaiah chapter 10 is the statement that says, will the axe boast itself over the one wielding it? But you see, within Molinism, God doesn't get to create the acts. He's dependent upon middle knowledge so as he can know who would function in that way. And so he's got to work through all these different worlds to find a world where he can find an Assyrian king that is going to do that for him. But he doesn't have the freedom to define these things. This is the essence of the error of the concept of middle knowledge. Isn't it interesting that we both cite Ephesians chapter one, verses four, I have four through six here, but four through 11. Yes, right there, God says he works all things after the counsel of his examination of middle knowledge and possible worlds. That's not what it says, is it? No. It's counsel of his will, not man's will. If you have a God who's working through all these possibilities, and he's been given this data from middle knowledge, it does not come from his will, it does not come from his creative desire, it does not come from his eutachia, then he is doing the best with what he's been given. That's not the God of Ephesians 1. Ephesians 1 tells us that this sovereign God who in eternity past chose a particular people does so out of the counsel of His will. Do not limit what God can do. Do not say, well, yes, God is sovereign because He's chosen to do these things when what you're fundamentally saying is, but He could only actuate certain worlds based upon this middle knowledge and this decision of man that cannot be altered but did not come from His will. Where'd it come from? We'll never be told. We'll never be told. Think of John 644. What a wonderful text. Heard a debate about it recently. John 644, no one is able to come to me. No one possesses the ability to come to me. That's bad news. Well, unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day, the only way that Greek can be translated honestly is that the one who's drawn by the father is raised up by the son on the last day. There is no difference between those two terms. And you cannot, without engaging in a perverse disruption of the text, turn verses 45 and 44 upside down and say, oh, well, these are the people who had already given themselves to the Father that the Father gives to the Son. Verse 45 is describing what that drawing is, the divine action of the revelation to undeserving sinners of who Jesus Christ is. But the point is this. What does it matter if God can have middle knowledge about what people will do. There is no situation, according to Jesus' own teaching, that you can put anyone in, no condition you can put anyone in, no context you can put anyone in, where they will, in and of themselves, take out their heart of stone and say, give me a heart of flesh. Did not Jesus say, he who sins is the what of sin? Slave of sin. Oh, but we have the power to unslave ourselves. Jesus said, if the Son sets you free, you shall be free indeed. We cannot free ourselves. This is something that takes a divine act of setting us free, a divine act of drawing an individual to the sun, and infallibly, that one is then raised up by the sun on the last day. That means Jesus is a perfect savior. This is the very foundation of our very confidence in the gospel. But how can middle knowledge tell us? How can this claim be that there are people that if you put them in the right situation, If you put them in the right context, no. God has to, by his sovereign power, draw. He has to enable. He has to make them alive. Therefore, you cannot have this concept of some mythical middle knowledge upon which you base everything else. And then we have this incredible text in Exodus chapter 33. Think about this. It's quoted, of course, in Romans chapter 9. Done a debate in Romans chapter nine with someone, I forget who that was. Notice he's sitting right behind Tim, so the darts aren't going back and forth. You better duck, brother, because there might be some stuff going right past you. You're sitting in the wrong spot. Quoted this in Romans chapter nine. But it's the relationship that Yahweh has with Moses. It's a special relationship. He says, not only have you found favor in my eyes, but I've known you by name. Man, we don't think anything about names that way, do we? Names don't really mean much to us. But in that culture, they did. And God says, Yahweh says, I have known you by name. And then what does he say when Moses wants to see his glory? Yahweh says, I will mercy whom I mercy, and I will compassion whom I compassion. Now we, in English, mess those things up. We don't have verbs for mercying and compassioning. But it did in Hebrew and in Greek. And that's what Paul quotes. God must be free in the exercise of His grace, or it's not grace. I will have compassion whom I have compassion. How does that work in Molinism? Who are the elect in Wallenism? Well, God puts certain people in certain situations, and he knows, based on this middle knowledge, that they will accept Jesus. He doesn't have to regenerate them, but that's what it's all about. It's like, wait a minute. Not only did he put the vast majority of humanity in a position where they never heard about these things, Up until the Christian church began to spread the gospel, everybody lived before that, oh well. But whose freedom determines who is going to be mercied? Whose freedom determines who's going to be compassioned? It's God's. It's not some mythical knowledge of what uncreated, undecreed people will do given a certain context. So why, then, is Molinism unbiblical? Molinism is not biblical in the strict sense that it is not taught by direct teaching, by example, or by necessary consequence of any text properly exegeted. Molinism is not biblical in the less strict sense as its foundational assertions are contradicted by direct biblical revelation. Stay focused. Listen this evening. Thank you for being here. God bless. Ready? What's that? No PowerPoint right now. You ready? Okay. Well, thank you, James. In my opening statement, I began by providing careful definitions and then proceeded to offer four key contentions, supporting an argument reaching a logically deductive conclusion that Molinism is biblical. I'd like to review my four key contentions in view of what Dr. White just offered. But first, I'll make a note that Dr. White raised soteriological issues in Salvation Matters. This is a big mistake. Molinism is not a soteriological system. The question, maybe we can have a debate next year, is if Molinism should be applied to salvation matters. But that is not under debate tonight. Remember the definitions that I offered at the beginning of my speech. They said nothing about soteriological systems. You can be a five-point Calvinist and what I call a mere Molinist. The two key contentions of Molinism, that God has middle knowledge and humans sometimes have libertarian freedom, does not contradict the five points of Calvinism. Try, look at them yourself and see if you can find a contradiction. It's not there. So let's review the four key contentions that I supported, because if those four key contentions stand, then Molinism is biblical. Let's start with contention number one, that the Bible supports libertarian freedom. Dr. White, I believe he offered compatibilism, another way of looking at free will. Number one, that's simply false, and two, it's irrelevant. I crafted my arguments with compatibilism in mind. Compatibilism is a thesis. that some kind of freedom and or moral responsibility is compatible with exhaustive determinism. Although I've argued elsewhere that some kinds of freedoms might be compatible with determinism, I've also argued that no possible world exists in which God causally determines me to do X, yet I should have done otherwise. That doesn't even make any sense. Moral responsibility in a desert sense, meaning you deserve praise or blame, is not compatible with determinism. You've got to have libertarian freedom for that. But anyway, this misses the point. I've not argued for moral responsibility in my opening speech. The argument I've advanced is about rational responsibility. So with that said, let's move to, he talked about a categorical versus conditional ability. That doesn't work either. Let's talk about abilities. I have the ability to play the bass guitar. I've been playing it for about 30 years now. On the airplane, on my flight here, if God all of a sudden commanded me to play a funky bass line, I have the ability to do it, but I don't have a bass guitar. And so unless God provides a bass guitar on the airplane, I could not keep his command. So it would not make any sense for him to hold me responsible to play a funky bass line unless he gives me a bass. So I have an ability, but no opportunity to play it. So if you go back to my definitions, you'll see I continually talk about the opportunity to exercise an ability. And so this appeal to conditional abilities will not work. Dr. White talked about how God uses the Assyrians to bring judgment and then judges them. What are they being judged for? Things that God causally determined them to think and believe in the first place? That doesn't make any sense. He talked about God not causing evil, but restraining evil. Well, think about this. If a mad scientist built, created, and programmed a giant robot to destroy all of Houston, Houston, we have a problem. And then it set the robot free in a compatible success to do exactly as it was programmed to do. And then after the robot destroys half of Houston, the mad scientist steps in with his remote control and begins to restrain the evil of the robot. And then he stands up in front of all the cameras and says, look at me. I have restrained evil. I should be praised. Now, should he be praised or should he go to prison? We all know who is responsible for the destruction of over half of Houston. It doesn't make any sense. So look, my first contention remains unrefuted. Dr. White didn't interact with 1 Corinthians 10, 13. He did not interact with my three-step syllogism. He did not interact with my arguments based upon 1 Corinthians 10.15, and he did not touch Ezekiel 33.11. He did not mention anything about what I argued, that if Ed is true, then Dr. White can't rationally infer or affirm claims of knowledge. He didn't touch the fact that if Ed is true, that he is a mere passive cog at the mercy of the whims of a god of mischief or a deity of deception. He said nothing about if Ed is true, that this does make God a deity of deception or a god of mischief. He says nothing about my argument that if Ed is true, that you have reason to doubt the Bible. He says nothing that if Ed is true, that you don't have assurance of salvation. Now he did say, but exhaustive divine determinism isn't the topic of tonight's discussion. That's false because based on the law of the excluded middle, if libertarian freedom ever exists by anybody, then Ed is false. But if Ed is true, then nobody ever has libertarian freedom. So to defeat my first contention, Dr. White has to actually argue for Ed. He has to exegete it from scripture to show that God predestines all things via exhaustive divine determinism. My first contention stands strong. Let's move to contention number two, that the Bible Affirms that things are predestined we both agree all right, so that one stands contention number three It's logically impossible to predestine a libertarian free choice That's true by definition. He said nothing against that and so look three of my four contentions remain strong dr. White has one chance left to show that Molin ism is not biblical let's look at contention number four the middle knowledge is the only way to predestine a libertarian free choice and Now, White's primary objection to middle knowledge has been, but where does it come from? Well, Dr. White is asking the wrong question. The proper question to ask is, what does an omniscient God know? The answer is everything. God knows the truth value to all propositions. As I've said elsewhere, if perfect power and perfect knowledge are necessary attributes of God, then middle knowledge comes along for the ride. This is because God's decree is contingent and not necessary. But God's attributes of omnipotence and omniscience are necessary. Asking where does middle knowledge come from is like asking where does God come from. It's a confused question. To put it simply, God's middle knowledge comes from his perfect nature. That's where it comes from. From God's perfect nature. The fact that God is a maximally great being and exists necessarily. To exist necessarily means you cannot fail to exist. To have your attributes necessarily means you cannot ever fail to have those attributes. That includes prior to the decree and prior to creation. That means God has middle knowledge. So my fourth contention stands, all four contentions stand, and so that leads to my conclusion. In summary, using biblical data and the God-given tools of logic and reason, I've supported four key points demonstrating that Molinism is the correct biblical view of God's sovereignty. Dr. White still needs to demonstrate that at least one of my four contentions is false. Dr. White needs to demonstrate that the definition of Ed can be rationally affirmed and exegeted from the text of scripture if he wants to show that libertarian freedom is never allowed. in scripture, and Dr. White must exegete that the way God predestines all things is via exhaustive divine determinism. Until he does all of this, Molinism is biblical. Okay, while it's fresh in your mind, very fresh in your mind, What does an omniscient God know? Well, he must know middle knowledge. That is not an argument. Middle knowledge is the assertion that there is knowledge of what undecreed, uncreated, undefined human beings would do in any given situation. And no one can tell you where it comes from, and he just had the opportunity of doing so, and he can't either because they don't know. And yet they say that's what delimits what possible worlds God can actualize. There are worlds God could not make. There are people God cannot save. There are things God cannot do because of the content of this middle knowledge, but we will not tell you where it comes from. We will tell you that simply because God's omniscient, he must have it. That is the end of the debate if you don't get anything more than that, because that's the central aspect of Molinism. All the time spent going, he didn't touch on this, he didn't touch on that. This is the rebuttal period. I'm not supposed to do that in my opening. And so that was an entire waste of time, the entire thing. See if you can find a contradiction. Now, by the way, I have eight minutes to respond to a 20-minute opening presentation. You have to pick and choose what is directly central. This is a debate where the weight of evidence must be upon Dr. Stratton to demonstrate that Molinism is biblical. And so far, the argument has been, well, if I can throw enough bombs at Calvinism, then that makes Molinism biblical. Think about what that means. The impossibility of the contrary does work in the transcendental argument. It doesn't work in this context. He made the statement, see if you can find a contradiction. He started off saying, Molinism is not a satirological matter. You better believe it is. If middle knowledge determines who the elect are and are not, you better believe that's soteriological. And I'm going to tell you one thing. Louis de Molina thought it was a soteriological issue. He was a Jesuit that designed it specifically to battle the Reformation and the Reformed presentation of the gospel of grace. So you better believe it is a soteriological matter. He raised the issue of people's decisions. He raised the issue of the elect. And then he says it has nothing to do with soteriology. Well, then don't bring up soteriology, because you're the one that brought it up. So he says, see if you can find a contradiction between what Molinism says. I presented a number of them. And I suppose I could say, see, he didn't touch what I said about Isaiah 10, and he didn't touch what I said about John 6, 44. That's easy to do, but it doesn't really accomplish much. But you want a contradiction? I gave a contradiction. No man is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. It doesn't matter what context you put him in. There are no choice meats. Then we were asked, okay, so here's the question I would ask, here's the contradiction. Who chooses the elect? Is it the free, sovereign choice of Yahweh to save whomever undeserving sinners he chooses to save in Molinism? The answer is no. In the Molinistic system, God can say, I will save whoever does this. I will save whoever fulfills these things. But God cannot say, I will save a specific elect. There are some he cannot save. So there's your contradiction. We were just asked to point the contradiction out. There it is. Who chooses the elect? Then amazingly, it was said, what were the Assyrians judged for? What they were determined to do? Read Isaiah 10. Will the axe exalt itself above the one who swings with it? They did what their hearts desired. Again, the Assyrians are not neutral people, and God's putting a big gun behind their head. Go do bad things. I don't want to go do bad things. That's not what is going on here. And no one reading Isaiah 10 would ever come to that, would ever understand that. These are individuals under the wrath of God. They make pagans look Christian. And God uses them and then judges them. It is not the idea. And this seems to be the understanding that some people have. that if you believe, not in the philosophical concept of EDD, you've never heard me even mention something along those lines, the sovereign king has created all of time and everything in time will glorify him. He has done so freely. If you want to call that determinism, fine. That's just simply what the Bible says. Whatever Yahweh pleases, he does in the heavens and on earth. That's how the psalmist put it. We can go through Isaiah 40 through 48 from beginning to the end. He is the one working all of these things. That's God's determinism, but that's his determinism determining his own glory and his own freedom and the demonstration of who he is by the revelation of his attributes to his people. That's what we're talking about here. And so in that context then, What do we have in this situation tonight? Well, plainly, it is a satirological issue. Plainly, we've already presented numerous biblical texts that cannot be made consistent with this system. And I should, I suppose, I will in the brief time I have. What about 1 Corinthians 10, 13? It proves libertarian freedom. No, it doesn't. It proves creaturely freedom. It's not libertarian freedom. There is nothing there. You can overthrow the very planned decree of God. No, it's simply a statement that speaks to our freedom to do as we desire, not as we decree, as if we somehow have that power and ability to do so. That's the difference. Dr. Stratton uses a very wide definition of libertarian freedom. Now, he has been criticized for this by leading scholars like Guillaume Vignon, And it has been explained over and over again, the difference between categorical freedom and conditional freedom. And the fact that what we have in scripture is we do in accordance with our desires. We do not have access to the divine decree of God. We will not be judged on the basis of the divine decree of God. We have his prescriptive will that says, you shall not do this, you shall not do that. And we will be judged on that. And when we act in accordance with our nature, either as regenerate or unregenerate individuals, we act in reality in a way that glorifies God. He has made time to be that way. That's what we have presented to us in the pages of the New Testament and the Old Testament together in consistency with the biblical revelation. So, what do we have? The weight is upon Dr. Stratton to demonstrate the biblical nature of Molinism, not by attacking Calvinism, but by giving us direct biblical teaching. And so far, we have not gotten that. Thank you for your attention. So we're going to transition to our cross-examination section. We're going to take a moment. I want each speaker to be as comfortable as possible, so give us just a moment as we set up. I think that would be a good idea. Especially as the older you get, the closer you get to having the bald spots. So you don't want that showing in front of your... Talking about bald spots. That's right. Do you need to plug in a computer? Nope. You do not have time for computers during this. So I'm going first, right? You'll go first. OK, just as a reminder, the cross-examination, we'll be getting feedback. Both speakers know to ask clear questions, relatively, and each speaker please answer clear, answer questions and do not answer with a question. And I just hope to sit here and moderate that. No yelling and screaming, as has happened before here. Some of you may know that. Okay. Do you want me to keep time or do you have a timer? I'll keep time. I'll keep time. Give me just a sec. I'll do it, too. Go ahead. Dr. White, thank you for the exchange so far. I want to agree with you with what you've written in your book, The Forgotten Trinity. And by the way, I love that book. And I encourage people to get out of it for years now. But one thing that you say in there is you talk about the need to clearly define our terms. This is really feeding back on me. You talk about the need to really clearly define our terms or else little else will be accomplished. So I think it's important for you and I to come to an agreement on what we mean by these different kinds of freedom that you just raised. So I'd like to start with what you described as creaturely freedom, because I want to understand that. So I propose that we use Chapter 9 of your own Confession of Faith, the London Baptist Confession. And for the sake of the audience, I know you know it, but let me read the first two points of chapter nine. One, God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice that is neither forced nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil. And they back that up with Matthew, James, and Deuteronomy. And then point two, man in a state of innocency had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable so that he might fall from it, Ecclesiastes and Genesis. So before moving forward and discussing other kinds of freedom, can we at least agree right now, Dr. White, that this is a good working definition of what you refer to as creaturely freedom? Unfortunately, what the confession is referring to there is pre-fall, so you would have to bring in two other aspects of the confession. So the first would be the assertion of God's absolute sovereignty and decree and determination of all things that take place in time. And then secondly, the material in regards to Adam's federal headship and the fall of man. So yes, but that's not all it says. Okay, but you do affirm this confession. Right, good. Okay, so that helps me as we move forward. Because that's exactly what I mean by libertarian freedom. Exactly what I mean. There's no difference. We seem to both affirm the same thing, but call it something else. So it seems that... Do you want me to comment on that statement? Well, you can maybe ask me questions here, but I've got some follow-up. So I'm happy to let you call it libertarian freedom, whatever you'd like. But be that as it may, I'm glad that we affirm the same concept. Because I do affirm that concept. That's what I describe as libertarian freedom. That's what I know. These aren't questions. These are statements that I disagree with. All right. Well, OK. You've got three. We're not saying the same thing. So no matter how hard you want to push it, we're not saying the same thing. I'd like to maybe try to get the mic a little bit closer. I think in the game, it doesn't have to be so much. We don't need to talk about the feedback. Yeah, that's way too far away. It's going to sound bad. Give me a little bit more. Okay, so we both agree on the same concept. Number one, do you agree that God was sovereign over the first sin? Yes. Good, I agree. I'm sorry, what do you mean by sovereign over the first sin? We can talk about that later. We both agree that God was sovereign over the first sin. Two, do you agree that God decreed and predestined the first sin? Yes. Amen to that, me too. Three, do you agree that God knew the first sin would occur before the foundation of the world and before he created the universe, or did he gain this knowledge at a later time? No, God decreed to create time. Did he know it or not before the foundation of the world? It's a nonsense question. No, it's not. If you can define your terms and then force me to use them, I can do the same thing. I'm going to answer the question, Tim. I'm not going to be railroaded. I've been down this road before. You've been debating for over 30 years, and this is my first, so here we go. It doesn't matter. The point is this. The issues of everything to do with God's creation flow from his will. And the reason he knows these things is because he has decreed to act according to his nature. So what else? Did he ever not know this? Is there any state of affairs? That's like asking, did he ever not know he was going to create and everything was going to happen in time? So he knew it from... You're asking a time-based question of an eternal king. It doesn't make any sense. Anyway, you've at least agreed with two, and I think you're agreeing with the third. So Dr. White, all I needed for you is to agree with at least one of those. And so I'd just like to be the first to welcome you to Molinism, because you're a Molinist. You are. You've affirmed the concepts. You have, Dr. White. You've affirmed the concepts that I've defined in my opening speech. All right? Using the definitions. That is a statement, and I'm going to respond to it as if it was a question. Am I affirming your statements? No, I am not. All right. You can. All right. Let me ask the questions. Let me ask the questions. I've asked three very clear questions. All right, let me move to the next question now that we're both Molinists. In your book, The Forgotten Trinity, again I love this book, you write, that most importantly we ought to be drawn heavenward by the very attributes of God that turn the worldly person cold, and in fact are often the most offensive to the natural or unsaved man. Do we love God, all of God, including the tough parts of His nature, or do we refuse to bow before those elements that cause us problems? If we love God, we will not dare to edit Him to fit our desires. But Dr. White, the irony here is that I, what'd you say? I'm pausing. I said you just ceased to be a Molinist, so thank you. All right, pausing this, getting some more time back. Dr. White, the irony here is that, I mean, you're now a Moulinist, so I'm a little confused, but if you reject Moulinism, you would be editing God, subtracting from his perfect power or knowledge, because it causes problems with your philosophy of Ed, which is nowhere found in Scripture, which is what you have to affirm to demonstrate that libertarian freedom is never possessed. It seems that you are violating your own rules expressed in the Forgotten Trinity. So here's my question. Do you affirm that prior to the foundation of the world that God exists necessarily as the perfect standard of power and knowledge, yes or no? OK, I'm going to answer the question that was first asked. You made an entire speech that was filled with false assertions. I'm going to answer that. I am not contradicting what I said in The Forgotten Trinity. And in fact, I would say it's Molinism that is fulfilling that, because it is God's absolute sovereign freedom over all, including the decisions of man, that Molinism rejects. That's the thing that you all don't like, and that's why you've come up with your system. So I am not in any way, shape, or form a Molinist. I am not in any way inconsistent. with my statement. So the actual question was? Do you affirm that prior to the foundation of the world, God exists necessarily as the perfect standard of power and knowledge, yes or no? Well, of course. God is... Then you affirm middle knowledge. No, I do not. I'll tell you why. Because if God is the perfect standard of power... You're preaching again. Okay. Ask questions, please. Okay. He doesn't want to know why. He's a Molinist. Alright, next question. How much time do I have? Two and a half minutes. All right, based upon your book, The God Who Justifies, I've been reading your stuff for a while. I really do look up to you. Dr. White, you write this. I love you, too. I love you, too, man. Man, you look like my older brother. We even wore the same jacket tonight. But my question is can you tie Abel's tie? Now he's stealing all my time. Man, he's crafty. Okay, let me get through this question. Let me get through this question and then I'll give him this time. You write, if God is the God of truth, then what he inspired will be consistent with itself. I agree with that, and you correctly imply that if God is the God of truth, then we can trust scripture. Would you agree with that? But on the exhaustive divine deterministic view that you must affirm in order to say that we never have libertarian freedom, then it follows that God is the sufficient cause of Christians having false biblical interpretations of scripture. Yes or no? Not what the Bible teaches, no. Pardon me? That's not what the Bible teaches. I know, I know. That's why I reject the view. The Bible teaches that Christians are to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that God likewise in his judgment has sent false prophets and caused people who refuse to love the truth to love. Do you have perfect theology? I'm sorry? Do you have perfect theology? No, I do not. Okay, so where you're wrong, if God causally determines all things, that means that God causally determined you to affirm false theological beliefs, and now you have a defeater against God being the God of truth. So how do you reconcile God causing you to affirm false theological beliefs and also calling him the God of truth? Your argument just said that God is not in charge of my state of sanctification. I am to grow. Are you going to be caused and determined? Your argument, Tim, would require you to state that the moment you were converted, that the moment you were converted, that you had to be given perfect theology. No, that's not what I'm saying. And that is not what the Bible teaches. It is God has Tim, do you want an answer? Because I've answered you on this before, and you know that. It wasn't a correct answer. I wouldn't encourage people to watch our video exchange, too. Well, we're out of time. But the fact of the matter is, God's purpose is being fulfilled as He grows me in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that does not require that I have a perfect theology from the beginning. But what follows is, if God causally determines everything, then He causes you to affirm false theological beliefs about Him. Let's get to the right time here. All right, Tim, I'd like you to take a Bible, please, because this is a debate on, is Molinism biblical? And I would like to ask you some questions about some of the texts that we have been looking at and get your response to them. Could you look with me at John chapter 6, please? And could you explain to me in light of, well, I suppose I need to ask a question. You have not this evening, and correct me if I'm wrong, you have not this evening ever used the phrase true subjunctive conditional. Am I right? That's correct. Do you accept or reject that terminology used by William Lane Craig? I don't reject it, but I typically use CCF's counterfactuals of creaturely freedom instead. Is it your position that those are the same thing? God clearly in scripture demonstrate that he has knowledge of counterfactuals of creature of At least he possessed counterfactual knowledge and it's what seems to be of creaturely freedom So do you do you have a problem with Bill Craig's assertion? that these true subjunctive conditionals delimit God's decree When has knowledge ever delimited anybody? Knowledge is power. And you can be ignorant and not know of what might limit you. But saying that these true subjunctive conditionals no more limit God than saying an omnipotent God cannot do the logically impossible. Just because God doesn't have the power to create a fourth person of the Godhead, we don't say, oh no, God is delimited. He can't create a world. He's delimited by this. That's fine, but the reality is I'm just trying to find out if your Molinism is lesser than other people's Molinism because they're all sorts of different takes and versions. Well, so you've got my book I do it's called yeah, I hear Molinism which is different from I realize that but near but mere Molinism still has to have middle knowledge as its key element. And when I say delimiting God's decree, do you believe that middle knowledge is taken into consideration by God in determining what are and what are not possible or feasible worlds? If God created a being or a creature who could choose between two options, each compatible with its with his nature in a specific circumstance, then that means the antecedent conditions are insufficient to causally necessitate the creature's choice. Now, if the antecedent conditions are sufficient, then there is not two options, there is only one. So it's either true or false. That's why I kept saying, if libertarian freedom is even possessed once, even if it's by Adam, even by pre-fall Adam, if Adam had that libertarian freedom, what you call creaturely freedom. So if Adam has that freedom, then God knows how Adam will choose within his creaturely or libertarian freedom. If God has the knowledge prior to the creation of the world how Adam would freely choose, in the London Baptist Confession, I've never seen anything so clear, especially going back centuries, so clear as to define what we mean today by libertarian freedom. If you affirm the London Baptist Confession, I mean, so you're shaking your head out there, but we as Molinists, we know what we mean by that. I've explained what we mean by that. And you can say, no, that's not what you mean by that. Tim, you've gone on for two minutes. Oh, please interrupt me. It's your time. Did God use this alleged middle knowledge in determining what worlds he could feasibly create? Yes or no? Did it delimit what worlds he could create? That's like saying, did God... This is not something that Bill Craig and I had to argue about. Alright, but I wish you should have talked about it. We did. Does God use his knowledge that he cannot create a fourth person of the Godhead... That's not what I'm asking. ...to delimit that he can't create that circumstance? Okay, you're changing my question. Well, all it is is saying that God can't do the logically impossible. No, that's not. And Reformed theologians, which by the way, I am Reformed by the way, and reform theology. Not in this created world. Let's talk about it. I affirm election. I affirm predestination. I affirm monarchism God Freely yes based upon what he knows they will do or can he save any person he chooses to say God can force Anybody into his presence that he wants to I didn't say force anyone in his presence. He wants to okay well God can God reformed theologian would ever put it that way I Well, let's go back to the London Baptist Confession. It certainly doesn't use the term force. It doesn't have force? No, it's not. Oh, you know who did say it? I think it was Shedd. I don't, again, coercion and force is not the terminology we use. Oh, OK, OK, OK, because you brought up the coercion. But I'm still not getting an answer here. No, we don't talk about a gun to the back of your head. What we talk about is God creating the antecedent conditions that are sufficient to causally necessitate the effect. They're either, man, I got dry mouth. But you're not, but you're not, OK, let's get back to the question I'm trying to ask. This is sort of foundational before we can get into the biblical stuff. I just need a simple answer. Are there worlds that God did not create? Because of his middle knowledge house. How's that? Is that is that a sure and I would say there are worlds that God didn't agree because he can't create a fourth person of the Godhead or make atheism true. So the choices of men When they would accept Christ the conditions do you believe that God knows? What conditions to put someone into so that they would freely accept Christ? Yes, does that involve regeneration? Or does it result in regeneration? It results in regeneration, if I'm understanding. Okay, so God knows what position... God does all the work in regeneration. Okay, God knows what context to put individuals into who are unregenerate, whereby they will accept Christ. No, I believe that the Holy Spirit has to work. No one comes to God. No one seeks God. No, not one. God does all the work. He does all the drawing. He does all the work. I'm a monergist. You're a monergist. I'm a monergist. And so anyone who is saved is saved solely and completely through the application of the work of Christ by the Holy Spirit. Yes. Okay. What about the lost? Are they, is there just no position they can be put in where they would freely choose Christ? And is that based on their values? I will just say, I'm not sure about that, and we've drifted into soteriological matters. That's not the topic of tonight's debate, and I made that clear. I can grant all five points of Calvinism for tonight's debate, because there is no contradiction with what I have argued in my opening statement. In my opening statement, I made it clear what I meant by that, that humans sometimes, even if it's just Christians, even if it's Adam, if there's ever a libertarian free choice anywhere, ever in the history of creation, and God knew it prior to the foundations of the world prior to his decree, then you've got some flavor of Molinism. Okay, then why did you come up with Trump? That's a different thing. I don't know why you did that. I mean, talk about... And so if you'd like to read about that, it's in the Mere Molinism Study Guide. We've got that for sale. Which includes resistible grace. Resistible amazing grace. But let me tell you, for the sake of tonight's topic, is Molinism biblical? That's not under the scope of debate. So for the topic of tonight, Dr. White... I will grant you your soteriology. I will grant you all five points. I'm not asking for you to do that. I'm not asking you to do that. And I deny the fact that Molinism can be separated from soteriology because the man who designed it designed it to be soteriologically significant. Well, OK. So here's a good point. Molina actually got his ideas from others. Molina was the first one to make clear distinctions and use the words middle knowledge, it seems like. But these go all the way, the idea of middle knowledge goes all the way back to the A.D. 300s, to the time of Augustine. Dr. Kurt Jarrus has recently written on this and presented papers. Dr. Jarrus, that's who it was. Yeah. And Dr. Jarrus, you can read more about this at veracityhill.com. But these ideas go back to the time of Augustine, way before Molina lived. So this isn't Molina's attempt to destroy the Reformation. No, this goes all the way back. So Molina was not trying to destroy the Reformation. I'll tell you this. I can reject everything. He was a Jesuit, right? Yeah, I reject a whole lot of stuff that he said. I'm just saying, hey, he got at least two things right. And plus he believed in God. Should we become atheists? So the key issue regarding libertarian freedom is in regards to this issue of the salvation of man, is it not? So how can we separate it out? No. Look, we should do another discussion. You brought up Ephesians 1. What's Ephesians 1 about? That God predestines all things. But the beginning of it is in Christ, adoption, salvation, forgiveness of sin, right? Yes, I am saying that, and look, I affirm predestination of, do you affirm double predestination? Oh yeah. Because I do. I do. I affirm predestination of all things. Name one thing that I don't think is predestined. This was the time that I said we would gather questions. And I hope you all put your second grade writing skills to good use. So if my volunteers could gather questions. They don't do that anymore. Yeah, we don't teach. Only the homeschool kids still learn handwriting. It's your homeschool, write it in. The Grace Family Baptist folks. Okay. Shout out from Grace's family. Okay. The offering plates are coming around. That's not for money. You've already given. You've already given. So if you have a question, send it in. This is going to give me about 30 minutes to try to cull through. At the time of questions, I'm going to go back and forth. So hopefully you indicated who the question is for, though maybe it will be obvious. Okay, that's enough. Remember, we won't get to them all anyway. by an outside force. Indeed, puppets are the kinds of things that are causally determined by prior antecedent conditions, forces, So with that in mind, let's reformulate your argument in the following manner. One. Excuse me, can I object to your definition? No. One. Yes, a puppet is not a person, a puppet is not a creature of God, it is an inanimate object, and therefore to even make the application is one of the reasons why all puppet analogy is completely wrong. Try to ask direct questions. If God causally determines your nature, your desires, your wants, your thoughts, your beliefs, your actions, how does that not make you a puppet? Just being consciously aware of what's going on doesn't make you any more. You're just a glorified puppet. I'm very, very glad that we finally got to this because this is the central rebellion of man. You cannot have a God. who fulfills Psalm 135.6 or Ephesians 1 without coming up with this idea that, well, if God creates time and makes you as a part of time, that turns you into a puppet. That's the whole point of the... Excuse me, I'm going to finish my answer. That's the whole point of my pointing to Jesus. The Word became flesh. He entered in and lived amongst us. That means that what God created in time is central and vital and important to his own self-glorification. What do I disagree with there? And what that means is to reduce that, as you just did, to some concept of being a puppet is absolutely absurd, Tim. I do not even understand how you can do so. Let me ask you another question. Antecedent okay antecedent conditions are either sufficient or insufficient to causally necessitate all effects That's true by the law of the excluded middle. Okay, so did God create? I'm asking a question. Did God create the antecedent conditions to causally? Determine their Christian man to sin Cod created all things and therefore all Good Lord, I hope He did, because He has used my sin in my life, not only to my sanctification, making me more like Christ, but also in my helping others who are going through the same thing. How can you stand at a graveside and not recognize the importance of this? So God causally determines sin and evil. This brings us to the problem of evil. Let me ask you another question. Was not, okay, you just made a statement that's actually a question. Acts chapter 4 says He did. What is Acts chapter 4 saying? God causally determines every single evil thought and action. God causally determines every sinful evil thought and action. The Bible does not say that. You just said God determines sin. No, I said this. God determines every single evil thought and action. Every single evil thought. Show me in scripture where that says that. Question. If humans never possess libertarian freedom, then that means that antecedent conditions are sufficient to cause and determine all things about humanity, and Ed would be true. However, if antecedent conditions are insufficient to causally determine all effects of humanity, then Ed is false. So based upon the law of the excluded middle and non-contradiction, either my view or your view is true. Multiple choice questions for you. Question. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Please. Is it the case of the first sin— Okay, I'm not going to answer questions based upon false definitions. Okay, it's a waste of our time. I'm not going to do it. False definition? Yes, you keep using— Let me ask you, my time to ask you a question. In the case of the first sin, were the prior conditions, A, sufficient or B, insufficient to causally necessitate the first sin? You've already said they're insufficient and called it creaturely freedom, but would you just reiterate that for us? Okay, I'm going to answer the three-minute sermon you just gave, if you don't mind, and maybe take even half that time in responding to it. I have pointed out more than once that your definition of libertarian freedom is primarily... Your definition that you have used, the term libertarian freedom, which you've used in your presentation and which you used in your question, assumes things that I've already said I do not believe. You know the difference between categorical freedom and conditional freedom. And I explained why it doesn't work in my rebuttal. Playing the bass on an airplane. You didn't. Yes, I did. I've written about it. Simply making up a story is not a meaningful rebuttal. The Bible tells us that we are judged on the basis of doing according to our nature and our desires. And your bass playing on a plane does not undo what the Scriptures teach. OK, next question. Did God, A, cause and determine the regenerate Christian man who sadly fell into temptation? You said we all still do that. So did God, A, cause and determine the regenerate Christian man who sadly fell into temptation and raped the little child to rape the little child? Or B, could this regenerate Christian man have taken his thoughts captive to obey Christ and taken the way of escape God promises to provide so that he did not have to rape the little child Yes or no, or A or B? To even ask yes or no with a loaded question like that is simply absurd in my opinion. I'm sorry. I like you, Tim, but these questions that you've decided to write up and load in such a way, I hope everyone is listening to this. Well, it's a yes or no question. No, it is not a yes or no question. It is absolutely absurd to talk about regenerate man, to not talk about what God's purpose is in that person's life would be, to not talk about the interaction with that child, the parents, anything else. God is glorifying himself in everything that happens. You and I are judged on the basis of what we knew at the time. But we couldn't do otherwise? I'm sorry? But we couldn't do otherwise? We're based on what we know, what God caused us to know, and caused us to act, and caused the man to raise a little child? You keep confusing, you keep asserting that we have to have knowledge of God's decree. That's the otherwise. We don't. No, that's not it. We only have God's prescriptive will to go by. And so, yes, that the man can do otherwise if he desires to do so. So that's a conditional. The question is, has God decreed what would take place? And in your own system, you say that God decreed that. So the man could have done otherwise if God would have causally determined him to do otherwise. That's what you're saying. No, I'm not saying that. No, because I could have played the bass guitar if God would have given me a bass guitar, but he didn't. So it doesn't make sense to hold me responsible. I can't force you to hear My rejection of your redefinition. So the Christian man who rapes the little girl. I can't even answer the question, can I? Are you all seeing this? Okay, you're all seeing it. Are you saying that he's not answering my question? Okay. No. No, they're all agreeing. That's because you've got all your melanists sitting there. That's your Calvinist right there. Who put the signs on the pews to say the Molinas sit there and the Calvinists sit there? Did they freely choose to sit there? Yes, they did. You were determined. Okay. I like you. Okay. Here's the thing. Let's just bring it down. I think it just hits us all because we know that some Christians have done horrible things like raping little kids. And we're either left with, if Ed is true, that means that God causally determined that to happen. Now, if Molinism is true, God doesn't causally determine these things. He creates a world in which he knows that it will happen, but he also has the end game in mind. And now you said, now you talked about purpose. You're not asking questions. You're preaching. You do realize that this is the worst cross-examination period I've ever gone through. I did not realize that because I'm having such a good time. This is my first. But you don't know how to ask questions. Well, you really get me off track, though, also. So anyway, I think I'm done. Am I done? Shall we blame him? Yeah. I mean, he's sitting here, so why not? He's the pastor of the church. He can't get blamed for everything. So why not? He's used to it. Yeah. So anyway, I mean, how much time? One more minute. OK. One more minute. Let's stay on this topic because I'm going to pick it up. OK. On your, OK, do you affirm that God causally determined the child rape? God decreed it. I agree. That does not mean causally determined. Well, I agree. Because the Molinus has access. Sorry, sorry, I forgot the rules. OK, go ahead. Can I get more than three words? Yes, go ahead. OK. I reject the term causally determined because it presents the idea of a moral neutral agent being forced to do something against his will. I am not saying that. I am saying that we as morally meaningful creatures live in a time that God has created and we are judged only on the things that we know. So it is not forcing me to do something. You have 16 seconds. The antecedent conditions are either sufficient or insufficient to causally necessitate all effects. That's true or false. If it is true, God created the antecedent conditions which causally determine everything, including child rape. Yes or no? Yes or no? Answer it. My goodness. All right. 10 minutes. I have, as a pastor, been in situations where there have been horrific incidences of sin. Do you believe that in the world God created, all those incidents of sin have a redemptive and glorifying purpose in revealing God's character to creation? Amen to that, yes I do. And I think it only makes sense on Molinism. Okay, so if that is the case, that means in Molinism, God chose to put each of the perpetrators of whatever horrific sin you want to postulate in the position of doing what they did, and He did so purposefully. That's kind of a, so in my written work I've distinguished between a manipulative view of Molinism and the strange view of Molinism. And I think everybody can see this. How many of you have seen the Avengers movies? Raise your hands. Oh my. Yeah, here we go. Alright, because Jesus loved to tell, help people understand reality by using fictional characters, so I'm going to do the same thing. causally determined and mind-controlled Bucky to commit evil acts. And Tony Stark was wrong, and everybody knew it, to try to kill Bucky when Hydra was the one mind-controlling and causally determining his thoughts, which led to his evil actions. Everybody realized that he was evil. Let me add one more important point. Please, one more important point to answer this question. You're not answering the question. Oh, I am, because it's going to be clear. Everybody knew that Hydra was to be blamed and not Bucky however when dr. Strange Actualized a circumstance where Thanos would freely choose to do evil Everybody even though dr. Strange had the endgame in mind knowing that Thanos is evil would be defeated and all the Saints would be raised Everybody praised dr. Strange for being the hero Yes Okay, sorry, oh Can we get okay cool all right back to the point? Did God, according to your position, this is the question I just asked and I would like to have a direct answer to it, did He purposefully and knowingly place the perpetrators and the victims in the position, since you've said God decrees everything, exhaustive providence, Did he, knowing what the outcome would be, place those people in the situation that resulted in those grave sins? Yes or no? God created a world in which He knew what evils would be committed freely. And so He knew that by putting that person in that position, what the outcome would be. He wasn't surprised. Just like Dr. Strange did with Thanos. He wasn't surprised. That's right. Was that so as to reveal something about God? Was it a redemptive revelation about God? Or is it just the best that he could do given middle knowledge? It would be, I think, I think this world that was created is the best feasible world given libertarian freedom, not mental knowledge. So this isn't a mental knowledge issue. I mean, it is. It's related. But if God is going to create free creatures that he does not causally determine, then that means he cannot causally determine them if he chooses to do so, if he's powerful enough to do so. So if God creates a world, if it's important to him to create libertarian free creatures, then he lets them act freely. But he also knows how they will freely choose before he creates the world and so he can predestine a libertarian free choice. You told atheists that my understanding makes God accountable for these horrible evil events. Well, God's not accountable to anybody. And you just said that God decreed to put all of those people, the victims and perpetrators, into a situation when He has infallible knowledge, His middle knowledge. Is His middle knowledge infallible? God is infallible. He's omniscient. He has middle knowledge of what's going to happen. How is your theodicy Superior to mine because on your view God could causally determine heaven from the beginning there doesn't have to be any single instance of Sin or evil ever if God causally determines everything however What does that have to do with it with the with the because my theodicy is superior because how? Because, on your view, God can have heaven from the beginning. On my view, God creates libertarian free creatures with the end game in mind, knowing that evil will be defeated, the saints will be raised, God will be glorified, and humans will be rationally responsible, morally responsible, and true love can exist. But this is beyond the scope of what I have talked about in my opening speech today. But it's not beyond the scope of Molinism, so simply trying to dodge it doesn't mean anything. It's beyond the scope of mere Molinism. Okay, so you brought up the question of evil acts to me, and when I then zero in on how your theodicy puts God in the exact same position You dismiss it and say I'm not going to answer? It's not the exact same position, Dr. White. It is far from it. Because all you said in your response just now, wait a minute, wait a minute, you went on and on and on, was well there was libertarian free will someplace. There is no libertarian free will involved when God determined, when God says I'm going to put the perpetrator there and the victim there. Oh, that's still free. On my view, that's still free in a libertarian sense. But God knows what the result's going to be. Knowledge doesn't stand in causal relation. Let me say that again. Knowledge does not stand in causal relation. There is a break. Look, antecedent conditions, prior conditions, are either sufficient or insufficient to causally necessitate all the effects of the human. So God decrees to put people in that position, but because it's not There's a break in the causal chain, and so therefore that man who raped the child is responsible. But it was absolutely certain to happen when God decreed. Certainty is not necessity, and that's a huge philosophical mistake you're making. But how does it give you any type of answer to the question of theodicy? The same way that everybody knew that Hydra was evil and that Doctor Strange was a hero. Go watch the movies and it's clear. Could I ask a simple question? Could you show me an example of that in here? I think from the whole of scripture, we get that. Give me an example. The whole of scripture can always give you examples. Ezekiel 33, 5, and 11. Let me type it up here. All right, this is Molinism in a nutshell. I'll give you verse 5 and then verse 11. He heard the sound of the trumpet and did not take warning. His blood shall be upon himself. If he had taken warning, he would have saved his life. God has knowledge of this counterfactual. And now we have verse 11, which implies libertarian freedom. Say to them, as I live, declares the sovereign Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back. Turn back from your evil ways. Why will you die, people of Israel? What's the context? The context is that they have multiple options, each compatible with their nature. So then God causally determined those who died to die. What is the biblical context, sir? Can you step out of your philosopher role long enough to open the Bible? I am looking at my Bible verse on the screen. And what was going on here? What started in Ezekiel 18? What continues in Ezekiel 33? The people are saying, there is no reason for us to repent because the fathers have eaten the sour grapes and the children's teeth are put on edge, and so we don't have to do any of these things. And what God is saying, I'm warning you, I'm warning you, I do not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. Turn from your wicked ways. He uses means. None of this has anything to do with establishing your definition. of libertarian freedom. Remember in my opening speech when I said this is like God determining people to be born without arms and then commanding them to shoot a left-handed layup and then holding them responsible for not doing it. Yeah, you did not give us an example. I'm giving you an example. Thanos isn't in here and there is nothing about Thanos in here and there is nothing that parallels Thanos. But evil is. Is evil not found in there? Is evil not found in there? Gosh, you would get mad at Jesus for telling a parable and using fictional characters to tell us about reality. That's exactly what I'm doing. If you're twisting scripture, yeah, that would be a problem. What verse have I twisted? How about Isaiah chapter 10? What about it? We could go there. Well, tell me what I twisted. Because I haven't. I think we've exhausted everything. Did you have time to actually get through all those questions? Almost. Almost. I think we'll have some good questions. I'll do the best I can to find the ones to bring light. I think it's pretty cool that somebody attached a 20 to their question. Did that influence your... It might. It might. Yeah. Yeah. But the guy that gave 100, his is at the top. Or the gal. OK. You go first. Five minutes. I'm going to stay seated here. Or should I move? I go first what? Oh, the closing speech. Yeah. I was getting all excited for the Q&A. In closing, I'd like to draw together some threads of this debate to see if we can reach some final conclusions. Recall that I began my case by providing carefully defined key terms so that Dr. White would know exactly what Molinus mean by that when it comes to the issues of contention. My primary argument hinges upon two biblical truths, One, God predestines all things, and two, humans occasionally possess libertarian freedom. I then noted that since it's impossible to causally determine a libertarian free choice, by definition, the only option left is that God predestines libertarian free humans via middle knowledge. In summary, all Christians should affirm Molinism for the following four reasons. One, the doctrine that humans occasionally possess libertarian freedom is supported by the biblical data. Two, the doctrine of divine predestination is supported by the biblical data. Three, it's logically impossible to causally determine a libertarian free choice. And four, middle knowledge is the only way to predestine a libertarian free choice. Let me conclude by discussing best explanations. The inference to the best explanation is the story that explains all the facts better than any other story. Molinism can explain the facts as to why a perfect God would allow a world suffused with all kinds of pain, evil, and suffering, whether it be moral, natural, gratuitous, or otherwise. Ed Calvinism, however, fails to provide a satisfactory response to the problem of evil. Moreover, when discussing if a view is biblical, all the relevant data, from Genesis to Revelation, must be taken into account and none of it can be ignored. Based upon the whole of Scripture, it's rational and responsible to conclude that God exists necessarily and is necessarily perfect in both power and knowledge. Since God's perfection is necessary and His decree is contingent, at least if the potter really does have freedom, we can infer that God has the power to create the kind of free creatures described in 1 Corinthians 10, 13, and also that God possesses the knowledge of how these free creatures would choose even if God never creates them. This means that based upon the whole of scripture, it's rational and responsible to conclude that God possesses middle knowledge. As I recently explained to Dr. White on Twitter, If perfect power and perfect knowledge are necessary attributes of God, then middle knowledge comes along for the ride. This is because God's decree is contingent, but God's attributes of omnipotence and omniscience are necessary. So just ask yourself, which concept of God describes perfect power and knowledge? The Molinist view, that God can create libertarian free creatures and incorporate their free choices into his exhaustive planning of history, or White's view? where God either doesn't have the power to create free creatures or doesn't know how they would freely choose and is thus powerless to incorporate free choices of creatures into his exhaustive planning of history. Indeed, as A.W. Tozer would say, White's view of God is a low view of God. In White's book, The Forgotten Trinity, he writes that most importantly, we ought to be drawn heavenward by the very attributes of God that turn the worldly person cold, and in fact, are often the most offensive to the natural or unsaved man. Do we love God, all of God, including the tough parts of his nature, or do we refuse to bow before those elements that cause us problems? If we love God, White says, we will not dare to edit him to fit our desires. The irony is that White himself is editing God, thus violating his own rules from the forgotten Trinity by subtracting from God's perfect power and knowledge in order to avoid problems with his preferred philosophical view of determinism, exhaustive determinism, which is not found in Scripture. We must take the whole of Scripture to infer the best explanation of all the biblical data. Ed Calvinism cannot make logical sense of all the biblical data, but guess what? Molinism can. Therefore, a rational Christian who uses the same tools to conclude the triune nature of God ought to also affirm God's middle knowledge and be a Molinist. So I want you to ask yourself tonight, which view is more consistent with the God you see in Scripture? According to Ed, God actually makes every instance of evil happen by way of cause and effect. This includes all of your false theological beliefs, Satan's rebellion, the fall of man, Hitler's Holocaust, and as Dr. White has previously affirmed, this even includes child rape. Moreover, according to White's view, God actually makes the majority of humanity suffer into the eternal holocaust of hell because God caused and determined them to possess a sinful nature. By contrast, if Molinism is true, God does not cause and determine these things. So let me leave you with the words of Paul once again, I speak as to sensible people, judge for yourselves what I say. What you just heard was Calvinism bad, Molinism good. That is insufficient to establish the assertion, and the debate is decided thereby. There has been no meaningful defense given of the central aspect of the Molinistic system, and that is the existence of middle knowledge, other than, well, if God has all knowledge, then he must have that too. Hopefully, if you've been following, you've recognized that the claim of middle knowledge, that there is this knowledge of what people would do before they are even created, before God has even decreed to create them, that then conditions the very decree of God and what world He can produce. Hopefully, you have recognized what the reality is there. I would like to remind you, this is a debate about what is biblical. In Acts chapter 4, verse 27, For they were gathered together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, together with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your will predestined to take place." This is the belief of the early church. This is the early church being threatened with violence for preaching the name of Jesus. And they understood that The intentions of Herod and Pontius Pilate, the Romans, and the Jewish people were very different. There were great contrasts between why they were involved in this horrific act of the murder of the only innocent person that has ever existed. But what did they say? They were gathered together against Christ to do what? to do whatever your hand and your will predestined to take place. That is the sovereignty of God. This is not the misrepresentation. This Ed stuff is so pitifully below what the Bible actually teaches that I don't even recognize my own beliefs in Dr. Stratton's straw man representation. And during the cross-examination, I made it very clear, I know what Dr. Stratton claims, but to actually stand here and say, I am a Reformed theologian, anyone who knows what Reformed theologians believe, soteriologically and cosmologically and everything else, knows that he's not presenting a Reformed perspective at all. Instead, there should be no problem with us all recognizing that God intended the death of Christ because it was not only the worst evil in the history of mankind, it was also the greatest good in all of mankind, at all the same time. And let me ask you something. The description that is always given of Herod, Pontius Pilate, well, he's forcing these thoughts into their minds. You think that's a proper description of Acts chapter 4? Do you think, Pontius Pilate, do you really think this was some guy who wanted to do the right thing? And you're saying that God gave him the wrong desires and then judged him for it, and this is terrible. The fact of the matter is, the Bible presents us as having creaturely conditional freedom in the realm in which God has made us. And that's why Joseph's brothers, that's why the king of Assyria, that's why Herod, that's why Pontius Pilate, they will be judged for what they did, not because of some myth of middle knowledge where God somehow knew, well, if I put them in that situation, they will freely do this, and therefore, I'm not actually—no. They did freely do what they did on a creaturely level. That does not make God dependent upon something called middle knowledge. The biblical term is eudaicheia, the kind intention of His will. And my friends, God is worthy of our trusting the kind intention of His will. No matter what we see in this world, no matter how much evil is around us, The scripture tells us the judge of all the earth will do right, and in that final day, he will be vindicated in all that he has done, not because he used middle knowledge, but because he acted according to the kind intention of his will and purpose. Thank you for being here this evening. I would prefer about a minute to answer 30 second rejoinders. Is that fair? As I just said, we're going to do questions for 20 minutes. Let me say, at the end of the question time, please express your appreciation through applause. I would like to give the speakers time to pack up their things and make their way next door without being spoken to, etc. So, remain in your seats. And then allow me to dismiss you. I'd like to give them time to get next door, take a breath. You all will not do what he's asking you to do. I can assure you. You will. You will. I have middle knowledge of this. Based upon past experience. All right, so 20 minutes, one minute to answer. And Tim, you have gone first throughout the night, so why not now? Let's keep it going. I wanted to start with one that, because we did get into some touchy hypotheticals. I've got it, don't worry. So let's just go there. If God created Hitler with libertarian freedom, knowing what he would do, is he not then culpable for the Holocaust? So again, I would, for an analogy, to help make sense of this, remember, Hydra is evil for causally determining Bucky to kill Tony Stark's parents, but everybody recognized that Doctor Strange is the hero in Infinity War and Endgame. And so with that, so this is similar to what Dr. Greg Welty has described the bullet bill objection. I call this the bullet bill fallacy because both Calvinism and Molinism, both affirm predestination. And so this bullet bill fallacy says, well, look, God predestines all things, right? He predestines it, too, on your view. But that fails to recognize the game-changing differences and the antecedent conditions are insufficient to causally determine the evil on the Molinist view, but the antecedent conditions that God created made even the Christian man rape the little girl and made Hitler kill six million Jews. God made it happen by cause and effect, but that cause and effect relationship is not there on Molinism. If God places knowing with certainty what people are going to do, places it in that situation, there is no meaningful distinction to be made. I don't think anyone sitting here is going, oh yeah, that would clear God of all objections. No. The reality is we're going back to who's making that final decision and on what basis and what is its end result. That's really the key issue. For the next question, I'm going to use my phone to read from 1 Corinthians 10, 13, if you all want to pull that up. That came up in the debate tonight. It did. And so I want to read it before I start the time. That's in the New Testament, right? That was a joke. That was a joke. 1 Corinthians 10, 13, for in one spirit we were all baptized... Is that not right? No? No, that's 12, 13. That's what happens when you have phones. Yes. Here we go. No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape that you may be able to endure it. So, the question is, how can you read 1 Corinthians 10-13 and not conclude that at least some people at some times possess libertarian freedom? Of course, again, it goes back to the definition of libertarian freedom. We believe in creaturely freedom. And these are regenerate people that are being addressed here. But please notice the context. Now, these things happen to them as an example, but they're written down for our instruction on whom the end of the ages come. Therefore, let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. And then you have 1 Corinthians 10, 13. All this is stating is to believers, God will not put you in a position where you are stuck Well, like what the Mormons say. The Mormons say that Adam was sent down to earth with two conflicting commands, and he had to sin. And so Mormons actually believe that Adam fell upward. Okay? That is not what the Bible teaches. This is not a discussion of alternate worlds or alternate timelines or acting outside the decree of God. It has nothing to do with any of that. It is a practical application to believers that you can trust that God will give you the ability to follow Jesus Christ just as he warned us against all of that with the people of Israel. What Dr. White is calling creaturely freedom is how I defined libertarian freedom in my opening speech. This is why I said that he's a Molinist tonight. He's affirmed everything I need for what I describe in my book as mere Molinism. I'm not arguing for everything that Molina thought. I'm not arguing for salvation issues or soteriological models. I'm just saying that sometimes humans have libertarian freedom, and he calls it creaturely freedom, and that God knows. He's omniscient necessarily. That's Molinism. Okay, a question for you, Tim, Dr. Stratton. Did God violate Pharaoh's libertarian freedom or free will by hardening his heart? when, yeah, Pharaoh wasn't living a righteous life when this happened. So what I find amazing in that passage is that Moses uses the language of going back and forth describing that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, God hardened his own heart. Is Moses contradicting himself or can we make sense of this? And I think middle knowledge solves the problem. Yes, Pharaoh was responsible he wasn't being causally determined by God to reject God in the first place and because he was rejecting God God said fine have it your way and Continued the hardening process God does that to people when they reject him? But but he doesn't cause them to reject them and to reject him in the first place that wouldn't make any sense and that definitely definitely wouldn't be the God who is love described in the New Testament and So yeah, that's good. It was God's intention when he sent Moses. He said to Moses before Moses ever saw Pharaoh, I'm going to harden his heart. Why? Because Pharaoh represented the corrupt religion of Egypt and all of the plagues were God's demonstration of the fact that he rules over all of those false gods. God had the right to kill Pharaoh the instant he sinned. But he didn't. He used him to bring about his own glory. That's the point of Romans chapter 9. He was demonstrating his power and glory over others. That is the issue that is found there. Question for Dr. White. Do you still affirm, I'm not sure White says still, but do you affirm that God... I'm getting old so I forget things. Do you still affirm that God creates all truths, and wouldn't that mean it wasn't true that God exists before, that quote unquote God exists, before God created that truth? I have no idea what that's about. God, if it's true, Jesus made it true. Those who have argued against this have always gone to attributes of God as if that could be something that is, no, I'm talking about in creation. If Jesus Christ created all things, for by him were all things made, were in heaven and earth, visible and invisible, principalities, powers, dominions, authorities, all things created by him, for him he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Okay? That means if it has to do with creatures, if it has to do with creation, if it has to do with anything along those lines, not the attributes of God, we're not talking about that, those aren't created. If it's created, Jesus defined it, that's what makes it true. This issue came up because in full Molinism, not just partial Molinism. In full Molinism, you have to answer the question, where did the infallible knowledge of what, as so far, uncreated creatures will do, come from? That's what the issue was all about in regards to Colossians chapter 1. And so this topic that's been raised here is something called universal possibilism. And Dr. White and I, along with Tyson, have had many video exchanges where it seemed that you were affirming universal possibilism. But that's clearly false, because it couldn't be true that Jesus creates the truth that God exists, or that Jesus creates the truth that the God is only three persons. But you just affirmed that it's just regarding creation, so now the fact So you're not a universal possibleist, I don't think, anymore, so I'm glad you've answered that. I just exegete Paul. I just try to think logically about scripture. Dr. Stratton, did Yahweh have to look into the possible worlds to learn what the Holy Spirit would do in the hearts of men? No. The middle knowledge view is not that God looks down and gains knowledge of anything. God is omniscient and knows. He simply knows the truth value to all propositions. in all circumstances, and the decree is contingent, at least if the potter really does have freedom. And so if the decree is contingent, but God's attributes are necessary, then this means he has the power to create a libertarian free creature, the kind described in my opening speech, and God knows how the free creature would freely choose if he creates him, and even if he never does. That's Molinism. I would assert that that is a minimalized version that does not do justice and, in fact, cannot explain the functionality. Because, again, the point is that what Molina presented of middle knowledge is not just, well, God has all knowledge, therefore, no. No. It's the idea that God can know what people will do before He creates them and that what they will do is not a function of His will. There is the issue. There is the issue. That is absolutely key. And 30 seconds is a really short period of data. Would you like to? No, no, no. We're stuck with it now. It's just so used to it. We can always change course. No. OK. Because the topic is, again, biblical, I would like to, again, read from a question that asks about Matthew 23, 37. So I'm going to pull that up and hopefully press the right one this time. Matthew 23, 37. Matthew 23, 37, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it, how often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings and you were not willing. So the question for you, Dr. White, is does Matthew 23, 37 prove libertarian freedom? Not even close. It is a judgment oracle against the people of Israel. It's specifically directed to the leaders of the people of Israel when it says you are not willing. That's directed to the leaders, not to the people who want to be gathered. That's one of the key misunderstandings of this text is people go, wanted to gather you, but you weren't willing, and so my attempts were frustrated. If you read it a little bit more closely, how often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling that I gather your children together. Matthew chapter 23 is one of the most amazing chapters in all the Gospels because that is the toughest language Jesus has ever put out. And he is condemning these very Jewish leaders. And only 40 years later, the blood flowed through the streets of Jerusalem in fulfillment of what he's then going to say in the next chapter. That's what it's talking about. It's not talking about anything about libertarian free will or anything of the kind. To see the absurdity of the ad view, I encourage people to read scripture and after every verse say that God causally determined to happen, and you'll quickly see how absurd the view is. On this, when they say, but you were not willing, because God causally determined you to not be willing. And that just gets crazy. I encourage you to go home and read your Bible tonight, and on every relevant passage, read it with Ed in mind, and say that God causally determined, and that you'll quickly see that libertarian freedom makes sense of scripture, but Ed does not. Okay, what did that have to do with Matthew 23-37? Because you were not willing is what you quoted. And if you were not willing, why weren't you willing? Because God causally determined you to not be willing. It's pretty simple. If the antecedent conditions causally... We've got a number of questions about Adam and the will of Adam. These come up a lot so I might as well ask one. So Dr. Stratton, did Adam have libertarian freedom or was Adam and Eve's sin determined by God? They definitely had libertarian freedom. The London Baptist Confession makes it clear that they had libertarian freedom. W.G.T. Shedd, another reform scholar, is clear that they had libertarian freedom. There are so many reform scholars out there today. Richard Mueller, read his work. Greg Kochel of Stand to Reason. He's a five-point Calvinist who also rejects exhaustive divine determinism and rejects White's view. He affirms that you've got to have libertarian freedom, at least occasionally, or say goodbye to rational responsibility. You can hold to libertarian freedom and stand well within reformed theology. In fact, I have a reformed card. I graduated from the same reformed university in which Dr. White attends right now. they saw fit to say, yes, your views are compatible with Reformed theology, and I got a PhD from him. And so if he wants to say that they don't know what they're talking about, well, I'll let Dr. White take that up with his own professors. I don't have anything to respond to because you didn't say anything about Adam. I said Adam had libertarian freedom. But you didn't define what that meant. I'm going to answer my question now. Thank you, sir. Especially in light of the fact that during the cross-examination, he specifically said that God predestined the fall. So the point of the question was, how can that be if the result of all that and Adam's headship over all of humanity was also a part of God's decree? That's the part that Molinism struggles with. Dr. Stratton? No, this is mine. Oh, that's yours? I'm next, aren't I? Okay, I apologize. Yes, yes, you are. If you want to throw one at him, go ahead. Sorry, it's his turn. That question was on the paper for both of you, so I apologize. Oh, that was for both of us? So I should have had a minute to respond to that one. If it was for both of us, I'm just simply saying, how do you answer a question about Adam's free will in 30 seconds? It's like being on CNN. Yeah. No, no. Look, I'm not trying to go after him. Give me 15 seconds. I was on CNN on the Dr. Drew Show. I don't know if any of you saw that on transgenderism years ago. And in the green room beforehand, The producer told us their studies showed that if any one person speaks for more than 15 seconds, their audience will tune out. Wow. That's CNN. This is CNN. Well, don't worry. No one watches them anymore anyway. That's true. They're all watching Joe Rogan. Yeah, that's right. This is a question that's a little different, perhaps, but I think the question of... We can't have anything different in this debate. The question of when Molinism was adopted came up, and whether it was fourth century or Molinas, etc. So the question is, when weighing opposing doctrines, how important is the date of adoption? Which is to say, are earlier doctrines better? Are you addressing me? Yes. Oh, thank you. First of all, Kurt Jarosz's paper, to my knowledge, hasn't been peer-reviewed yet, and so I think bringing it up is highly questionable, and I'm looking forward to having serious church historians go into it, because it is very plain that Molina came up with something very unique in a very unique context for a specific purpose. Now, how important is it that it be early? It depends on the nature of those early documents. I teach church history at GBTS, and I think it's very important when the topic was being discussed, but the reality is the first full-length treatise on the atonement doesn't come until Athanasius in the fourth century. That doesn't make the atonement unimportant, but it does tell you that there were some things were being discussed before other things. So if it's something that's never been heard of before, yeah, that's relevant. But you can't expect full explications while you're being chased around by Roman soldiers. So Dr. Kurt Jarrus, who is not a Molonist by the way, has shown that the core critical components of Molonism, that is that God's counterfactual knowledge prior to the divine decree, existed in the 5th and as early as the 4th century in the theological development over the fate of unbaptized infants. According to Gregory of Nyssa, in his work on infants' early deaths, God so providentially ordered the world that infants who died prior to being baptized would be judged based upon what they would have done if they had lived. That's the Molinist response way before Molina walked the earth. So bottom line, Gregory all the way back in the... Oh, I'm done? Okay, sorry. Okay, last question for you, then one more question for you, then we're done. Okay, question for you, Dr. Stratton. Does Molinism hold to the self-sufficiency of God? If so, how is God self-sufficient if subjunctive conditionals are a prerequisite to the decree of God? Okay, again, all we're saying is that God cannot do the logically impossible. I affirm the aseity of God. He is self-sufficient, right? But God cannot do the logically impossible, and we do not hold that against an omnipotent God. God cannot create a married bachelor. Jesus when he was writing in the dirt, we don't know for sure what he was writing in the dirt, but we do know one thing He wasn't drawing triangles with four corners. God cannot do the logically impossible He cannot create married bachelors And so if God desires to create libertarian free creatures if that's the his will that's the eutachia of his will then He cannot causally determine them by definition. So it's just logically impossible to say that God can create libertarian free creatures and also causally determine them. That's all we mean. God can, and He did, and the Bible teaches it, Acts chapter 4. Done. Last question of the evening. Dr. White, this was a text that also did come up, and it's a biblical text, so we'll end on it. 1 Timothy 2.4a, it is a text that comes up a lot. God wants all people to be saved. I'm not reading from it, but that's the gist of it. We can look that up if needed. But 1 Timothy 2.4, God wants all people to be saved. If this is God's will, why are all people not saved? Does He not actually will that all people are saved? Very hard to do in one minute, but the simple reality is when you exegete 1 Timothy 2.4, you realize that beforehand there is discussion of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life. The text itself introduced kinds of men. Tim said it's not kinds of men, but it's right there in the text. Then it goes on to say there is one God and there is one mediator, all's between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. For whom does Christ mediate right now before the throne? Is he mediating for the people who are in hell? Is he mediating for the people who will not be saved? Does that mean he's failing in his mediation? The reality is his mediation has a specific people that's consistent with the doctrine of particular redemption and the idea that it says who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony born at the proper time, who wants all men to be saved, all kinds of men will be saved through the work of Jesus Christ perfectly because he is a perfect and powerful Savior. Whether it means all people or all kinds of people is an interpretive matter that's not intrinsic to the word Pontos. That said, I explain in my book that a responsible exegesis interprets an ambiguous text in view of clearer text and cannot violate the character or nature of God that we get from the text. So if God is perfect in power, knowledge, and love, we cannot violate that. And in my opening statement, I quoted scripture where Moses makes it clear that God wants everyone to repent and even says they can do it. So Pontos in 1 Timothy 2.4 is best interpreted as referring to all people. Thank you both for your spirited conversation. Please. See, Dr. White, they stayed seated, just like I said. OK. Please, we're going to give them a few moments. I would ask that the accordance, Sean, if you might come forward to go next door with Dr. White, if he hasn't already, at the accordance table. And would you like to go forward for the reasonable faith table? So the best way to leave, the best way for you guys to leave, by the way, is to go through that door, through the bell tower, and into the building next door. But the best way for y'all to leave would be to go through the front door of the church, which for you is now the back, but the front door of the church, and to go around. If you want to go to the reasonable faith side of that building, it will be on your right. So go on the door, it's like directly behind the magnolia tree. If you want to go to the accordance side and buy, I believe Dr. White's books are available. Member, please keep your meet and greets to a minimum. There may be other people who also want to meet and greet, show respect for them. I may be over there cracking the whip on that. Um, but that is on the left side. So, uh, again, so right side, reasonable faith team, left side, accordance Calvinist team, you might say. Um, but continue to give them a few moments. Um, and in the meantime, discuss among yourselves who you think won tonight. Isn't that what we do? But thank you again for coming. Okay.