He’s got major blind spots, though, when it comes to church government, baptism and the objects of baptism, and apparently can’t see, or won’t see how unbiblical they are even though he’s friends with Jason Wallace in Salt Lake City who he’s ministered for and with. Wallace makes a outstanding point in some of his videos about how there’s no evidence for baptism by immersion before 1500 and Baptist always like to ignore verses like Numbers 8:7, Ezekiel 36:25 and Isaiah 52:15.
Amen! He clearly can stand by Gods word and other than Leighton and Andy he is very respectable to brothers within debate and reprove Thank you Mr white for standing true to the truth of scripture !
@@samsdad110 The word baptism itself means "immersion". It is used as a metaphor of being buried with Christ. How in the world does sprinkling with water mirror burial? It doesn't. The Didache, which is one of the earliest Christian texts, prescribed baptism by sprinkling only if sufficient water was not available for submerging.
@@samuelrosenbalm, Exactly right!..and we are clearly told that John the Baptist Goes baptize in a place near Salim because there is plenty of water there. You don’t need plenty of water if you’re merely sprinkling people. You could use a tiny creek or a well. You need plenty of water for immersion. The Bible also says Jesus came up out of the water. Why would you even need to be in the water to be sprinkled? Baptism means immersion and that’s what they did. They changed to sprinkling when they started baptizing babies. Because it was cruel to dunk an unknowing baby under water. Then they started just sprinkling adults as well. Never do the sprinkling Christians ever have to go to a place where there is plenty of water. Like John the Baptist did and like people who immerse still do. Some people won’t give up their traditions. Even when the Biblical truth is plain.
I appreciate the apologetic ministry of Frank Turek and I think you guys would make a great team on a debate stage against some atheist. I also think this is a valid critique of his view of Molinism and I appreciate your input on this topic. #TurekWhiteDebateTeam
Jesus' comments in Matt 11:20 completely changed my views on soteriology a few years back: "you, Capernaum, will have it worse on the day of judgment than Sodom and Gomorrah" Yet Jesus - who knew from the beginning who would not believe (Jn 6:64) still chose to preach there. Why??? He already knew in advance that all it would do is intensify their hellfire. WLC's explanation for this passage is to chuckle and dismiss it as hyperbolic language. At that point, I threw out Molinism and never looked back. Let's recap: 1. Jesus did indeed know from the beginning of time who would not believe (Jn 6:64. Direct quote) 2. Jesus was the one who destroyed S&G (Gen 19:24-25) 3. According to the words of our all-knowing Lord, Jesus could have gone into S&G and preached, and they would have repented. Yet He chose instead to destroy them. (While destroying S&G, our omniscient Lord thought "Capernaum will have it worse than S&G ..and WLC will chuckle that I said so". Not a good look for WLC.) 4. Jesus deliberately chose to preach in Capernaum, knowing full well in advance that they would reject Him... 5. ...and therefore be guilty of a worse hell than they were already destined for. How does Molinism explain those counterfactuals? Molinism cannot explain Jesus' behavior here. Period. Full stop. (Nor can Arminianism or Provisionalism) Only Calvinism's doctrine of Limited Atonement can explain Jesus' behavior.
The FUNDAMENTAL question we should be asking in the discussion of God's Decretive Will is: How Does God Know Stuff? Every answer that synergists give, whether it's Molinism (the myth of "Middle Knowledge"), or some sort of Empiricism (God "observes" all things at once...etc.) is ultimately going to make God's Omniprescience (His exhaustive, infallible foreknowledge) DEPENDENT upon the creation, creatures, and the events that occur in time. So, for example, I know of two different videos by two different proponents of Molinism who state exactly that! Dr. William Lane Craig says explicitly, "God's knowledge is DEPENDENT upon the events that occur in time." Pastor Mike Winger says explicitly, "God's knowledge is DEPENDENT upon the choices I make.". This is exactly why the Reformed, like Francis Turretin in his "Institutes of Elenctic Theology," rejected the idea of "Middle Knowledge" and said that in the system of Molinism, God's knowledge is DEPENDENT on the creation. God's knowledge (His Omniprescience) is dependent on Himself ALONE! All God's knowledge is derived from His own self (Aseity), and is dependent on nothing external to Himself.
Ryan Gallmeier how is that something can be external to God but that his knowledge can not be dependent on it? That same logic could be used to say that nothing is external to God at all.
@@bradom8052 What is external to God? Everything that exists is either God or created by God and thus contingent on God. If by 'external' you just mean 'not God', then I think you missed Ryan's point.
@@bradom8052 Omniscience and Omniprescience are part of the Essential Attributes of God (His Aseity). You are apparently asserting, without any shame or embarrassment, that God is DEPENDENT upon His creation and creatures for His knowledge. That logic cannot be used to say that "nothing is external to God," because we are not talking about Ontology (the very "being-ness" of things). Scripture makes it clear that God is the Creator (and He has Attributes which are essential to Him, like, Omniscience/Omniprescience), and WE are creatures (something "other" than Him and His eternally essential Attributes). So, you're attempted argument is flawed. But what is more disturbing is that you apparently still think God's knowledge is DEPENDENT on YOU! See how arrogant that is? Man exalting himself above his Creator? I hope you see. *Soli Deo Gloria*
Ryan Gallmeier so because i have recognized the color of a flower. That flower has now stolen my glory, because my knowledge of that flower is not dependent on me? Also you cannot claim that God is all knowing if he cannot know things that are dependent upon something else. That would mean anything with a brain is all knowing.
@@bradom8052 Are you God? If not, why are you comparing yourself to God? Why do you argue as if creator God is exactly like a created human? God made the flower and humans. You didn't make the flower. Your example is not applicable.
@@repentorperish1386 A: that White is on point about anything. That is funny. B: that God's glory needs defending from beliefs that God decreed the majority of the church to hold. God doesn't need to be defended from the evil things that he forced the church to believe. God wants them to believe those things.
"Tradition can be such a strong filter that you don't hear what you're saying". That is a great point to remember. I've seen that in my own experience, and it can be difficult to overcome.
While I greatly respect Frank's work, I have to agree with James White here when he makes the distinction between redemptive action versus God's decreed outcome regardless of the mechanism (good or evil). Dr. RC
At no stage in my 45 year walk with the Lord has the Devil’s assault upon the Lordship of God been as intense as it’s been of late through people like William Craig, Leighton Flowers, Frank Turek… So, I sincerely appreciate your pushback James and your faithfulness to the Truth!
Frank: "You have to evaluate them no matter when they emerge" James: "So I guess what he is saying is that 'theological novums are cool. People come up with them everyday!'" James proceeds to respond to the paraphrase that he gave Frank and point out how ridiculous it is. I would agree with James that this would be ridiculous, but that's clearly not what Frank said here. I have long been on a neutral stance on this issue because I have seen powerful arguments on both sides. James himself has provided some decent points as well, but it's times like this that make it hard to listen to him. No charity or humility in trying to represent the other person's perspective. This doesn't convince anyone who is on the fence, just hardens those on the side that agree with him by using a mocking and flippant tone. He seems to be kinder to those outside of the faith than those who he should be in fellowship with. John 13:35 "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” We gotta get back to this.
True. The last thing we need is see brothers in Christ acting in a cavalier manner towards each other when they should be acting like, I don't know, grow ups and talk it out like, maybe proper BROTHERS?! Kinda sad to see well known Christians acting like this toward other Christians. There are better ways to communicate truth that don't compromise unity. You can start with having a level-headed discussion about it.
I just don't understand why James needs to retaliate with a cynical response when having an in house disagreement, it's like he tries to isolate anything Turek says to promote an agenda that he is propagating unbiblical and malicious teaching, which is far from the case. Why not say "I see your point, and disagree respectfully."
God does not learn, we can only make choices consistent with our nature, fallen or regenerate. Arminian apologists are so unclear.... and this kids question was clear and direct, Turek pulled an olé
I'm genuinely surprised Frank Turek wasn't familiar with Isaiah 10. As soon as the kid said it, I recognized it. Seems to me that anyone wishing to show competency on the topic of theodicy ought to be familiar with this passage since it puts God firmly in the driver's seat of the actions of a wicked king. (Dittos for Jer 51, btw).
For those who are confused by all of this ‘middle knowledge’ stuff (proponents of Molinism tend to muddy the water only to make it seem deep), I want to offer this simple explanation: Molinism (or ‘middle knowledge’) places the knowledge of God somewhere between these two extremes (the fact God is omniscient is something they conveniently ignore): 1) God knows who will be saved (because He chose them before He laid the foundations of the world - Rom 9, Eph 1…); and 2) God knows not who will be saved (because that depends entirely on their ‘free choosing’) So, Molinism (‘middle knowledge’) is the idea that God will know who is saved only when the sinner ‘freely’ chooses to be saved, ie God’s knowledge is contingent upon the capricious whim of the sinner (driven by the ‘power of the sinner’s ability to freely choose for himself’, apart from God)! Molinism is really a theosophical attempt to somehow preserve the ‘sovereignty of man’ (properly known as ‘Autonomianism’) while paying lip service to the Lordship of God… An utterly unBiblical and philosophical bankrupt idea!
He says molinism is not directly taught by the apostles... Kind of like Sovereign decrees of God are not taught by the apostles. Both are just ways of trying to synthesize and understand the various passages on Free Will and God's sovereignty. The only difference is that the notion of God's sovereignty decreeing that a person will do evil because he wants them to because it brings him the most pleasure for them to burn forever in order to show his glory is totally inconsistent with plain statements of scripture and with God's revealed character throughout the entire Bible.
It's true. God says He takes NO joy in PUNISHING the wicked, only that they repent and come to Him. Wouldnt he just MAKE people all come to Him then so that there would be no wickedness to punish, to begin with? The answer is a big YES, He can, of course, He can. However, he is allowing people to choose and that is beautiful. I mean Just cuz he won't force people to do things does not mean that he cannot do them, to begin with. I can jump up and down while writing this text but I won't. Does not mean that I cannot perform the act. God allows evil, yes, and his wrath is abundant as seen in the Exodus. But knowing God takes no pleasure in punishing the Wicked, would it not make more sense then that he force the Egyptians to reject their gods and follow him instead of FORCE the Pharaoh not to let them go. Why would God even try to convince the pharaoh if He was the one who forced him to not repent in the first place? Just cuz he shows us his love and care doesn't mean he still isn't Holy, wrathful, and justified its okay to revel in the FACT that Jesus Christ LOVES me that He would die now I have a duty to live my life as best I can in his name even though it won't be perfect. Kiss the hand of the Son lest he finds displeasure in you and be destroyed. Makes little sense if a person has no choice but to believe in the first place. But what's most important here however is that we recognize that these guys still have a love for Christ, the fear of God, and are being led by the Holy Spirit to do works of our Father's kingdom. They believe in the Virgin marry, they believe the Lord died on the cross for sinners and was resurrected, in all His miracles and the sins. I do not think we should throw hatred and foul words or death wishes for others to go to Hell since 1. Jesus said we should Love our enemy even if they curse us 2. We want to serve the same God here and our disagreements are not so radical like getting drunk is not a sin or I can have sex outside of marriage. We love God and all that he is and Fear Him as we should but we love that fear because we know it is right and just and keeps us where we are meant to be, where he wants us to be. In His arms.
Church fathers were heavily sold on Gods sovereign decree and predestination - all of them. “2.1 Blessed and noble, then, are all the martyrdoms which, >>according to the will of God
Nope, that is not what James says at all. God is not a monster or sadistic. Also, if God is all-knowing, all-powerful, knows the end from the beginning then it is consistent to say every evil that occurs is allowed by him, but cause he not man is autonomous. God restarians evil why will it be strange he allows evil. And the bible tells us that all God does is for his glory, including allowing evil. And if he knows all the ngs before they happen, yes we can say he's decreed them before the foundation of the earth.
The sovereignty of God is stated even more clearly in Genesis 45:8, where it is not only stated as a difference in intent but of authorship of the act. The kid asking the question is wiser than Turek (Psalm 119:99).
Notice how tureck says “I don’t find anything in the Bible that would prevent God doing that (monilism)” but the objection made by the student is Scripture that directly brings the objection to the foundations of his monilistic perspective. It’s literally right under his nose and he cannot smell it.
it would be dishonest to say that he is ignoring scripture. if you watch Franks stuff. he has thought stuff through. Doesn't mean he is correct. but to say that he has just missed a passage doesn't cut it.
Knowing you before you're born and before creation are 2 different things. When we say before creation we mean before the decree to create in genesis. Knowing you before you're born is still after the decree to create chronologically. If I'm missing your point then my apologies
Dr. White, I am not a theologian, but the argument that the Apostles didn't teach something makes it invalid seems wrong to me. The Apostles didn't teach the trinity directly, nor did they teach Calvanism directly, but we gleen this from the teaching and it is consistent with their teaching. There are many things like this, including Molinism.
I'm not choosing sides necessarily, but could I suggest that the middle knowledge of people that God has before he wills to create them originates in God himself, who knows himself perfectly, and makes people in his image. He certainly knows counterfactuals, but the argument should start not with God's knowledge of counterfactuals, but rather with his perfect knowledge of himself and thus his perfect knowledge of those who would be made in his image.
Agreed, but that no longer allows for libertarian free will, which is the entire point of Molinism. I personally think of it as God knows all logical possibilities, and actualizes the logical possibilities of the world and people based on his nature.
@@LinebackerTuba Maintaining libertarian free will may be the whole point for some Molinists, but it may I don't know if that's a fair broad categorization of all Molinists. I think they are, like all of us, looking for "meaningful" free will. They simply have a hard time finding it in hard determinism. It's an understandable struggle, even if you don't agree. My suggestion is just that we go back and forth arguing what events and decisions God knows ahead of time when maybe God's knowledge of us is more personal and more complete. Maybe he just knows US (isn't this what "foreknown" means?). And because we're are made in his image, he knows the integrity of our nature and every woven fiber of our meaningful freedom with the same detail and perfection as he knows photosynthesis and molecular physics. I'm not reducing our "free will" to scientific collisions, I'm just suggesting that the nature of God's knowledge is far more personal and complete than just knowing the outcome of some event. He certainly knows that, but what composes that knowledge isn't simply his future-telling ability--it's his intimate knowledge of the nature and integrity of the creatures involved. And this is not a knowledge that could only come from outside of himself like Dr. White is suggesting. He knows himself and he made us in his image. So he knows what we need and long for. And he knows how those needs and longings are corrupted by sin. But the knowledge still originates in himself. Some Molinists may be arguing for an unhindered and uninfluenced libertarian free will as you've suggested, and to that end, I'm not trying to defend them. Just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
@@jaybeevh3778 With Molinism, yes there are some people by the strict definition that aren't concerned with LFW, but I do think it is fair to say that most promoters of Molinism do so to keep LFW intact (I could be wrong, I am open to counterexamples). I don't think there is any ill intent on their part. I agree that they are just trying to make sense of things and determinism is difficult for them to swallow/make sense of. As for the rest, I don't think we have any disagreements. My take is not incompatible with yours. My take in one sense restates omniscience, but it also show how omniscience and God's role as sole creator (actualizer) imply determinism. Many deeper insights can be drawn from that framework. I'm unclear what baby I threw out with bathwater. One additional question is, what do you mean by a person's nature? Is it something inherent to them, or is it something that develops over time?
@@LinebackerTuba You may be right about promoters of molinism. I was probably reacting internally to my own appreciation for some of what molinism has unearthed for me, though I don't feel it necessary to fight for LFW myself. Also, I think I meant that middle knowledge or counterfactuals are the baby being thrown out because they are being utilized by a majority of molinists (as I grant may be the case) to argue for LFW. I think there is some value to the idea of middle knowledge. Dr White was attempting to throw middle knowledge out by stating "what it does is limit the freedom of God's drecree based on the content of middle knowledge, and where that content comes from, no one knows" and that the only way this framework works, "is to make man something that is defined by something outside of God." This seems to be the main thrust of this argument against molinism (though there are others, I understand). I simply disagree with his conclusion about the source of middle knowledge, that it can only originate outside of God. I say, when it comes to man and the choices he makes, God can certainly know all of man perfectly before he wills to create them, if his will is to create man in His own image and likeness. I say man's nature is both inherent to him (created in God's image) and influenced over time (subject to the corrupting forces of man's sin). Though, this started by quipping that it is not as clear cut as Dr. White states, that middle knowledge means that there are some things about us that originate outside of us and God, and on that basis we should reject middle knowledge. There is another possibiliy.
@@jaybeevh3778 I agree, middle knowledge does not imply that knowledge the come from outside of God, LFW does (I think Dr. White is assuming the combination of the two when he speak, which can be confusing). I too find middle knowledge to be a helpful concept when making sense of how God acts. Do you think God has LFW, and if so what do you think is meant by that? (You seem like a cool person, just curious what your thoughts are)
bob 42255 - In danger of what? Being correct? I’m sorry, most of this man’s content comes across as smug. Sure he thinks he’s got some weird ass version of certainty, but that’s the maybe more the real danger. A lot of bad stuff happens(ed) in the name of “I am most certain this is how god is and wants us to act”.
bob 42255 - “a modest or low view of one's own importance” exactly what I judge he’s lacking. Sure you can appeal that “preaching the truth” is always going to come across as smug to the non-believer (answer not a fool to his folly). But to that, I’d claim this is a cowardly way to hide behind the Bible. I’m not judging him as an unbeliever or a “false” teacher. I’d actually say he just might be teaching what the Bible actually plainly reads and can be understood to be. But there is the issue for me. Holding to the fundie view is only becoming harder and harder to defend both culturally and experientially.
Frank Turek comes out of Southern seminary here in Charlotte so that should tell you everything. Unfortunately, a lot of naïve people ask him to speak as I heard him do so last spring it men’s prayer breakfast and he fumbled the question that I asked, but I should’ve asked a tougher one about the Saul of tarsus conversion, and who was responsible for it and how it happened. In other words, it wasn’t his free-will decision, now was it??
James White: I am a Christian and struggling with this I would love if you could answer. You said, God made you the way he did on purpose with the parents he placed you with on purpose. So, for the child that is born to parents that sell that child into sex slavery at the age of two, who is then abused until the age of four and then after no longer being of use is murdered. Why did God create that child the way He did in the hands of those parents knowing what would happen? And where is there any redemption in that? I know this is a tough and nasty question, but I think also very valid and I would appreciate any kind of response. Thank you.
The problem is your question. We only know what is true in some situations. We don't know the details of every situation and certainly can't answer hypotheticals. So you are asking an unanswerable question. So the real question is what do the scriptures say? If they say x then x it is, whether we fully understand it or not.
@@donhaddix3770 I haven't "interpreted" it. I have read the plain English. I have checked the Greek. What more can I do? You tell me that when it says that Jesus said "No man can come to me unless...." He means that they can? Maybe it isn't Calvinism you don't like eh?
Immediately if you count the teachings of Jesus and Paul and John and the rest of the New Testament. The main issues involved weren't really challenged until Pelagius, so about 400 years for it to be questioned and the church response. The Canons of Orange is around 529 AD which affirms at least 4 out of the 5 points of Calvinism, so that would be the upper limit. Enemies of Reformed Theology named it after a 16th century man, but the ideas are much older.
@@oracleoftroy I know I'm way late to this discussion but I wanted to make a couple of points. I don't think the Reformers can say they are in continuity with the early Church Fathers. Aside from the Reformers mainly going with Augustinian theology, which is a mistake, they often don't hold to the totality of those Canons. For example; Canon 5 says "If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly **and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism** -if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles," This Canon affirms baptismal regeneration, which no Calvinist would affirm. This synod also affirmed the celibacy of priests, another thing not practiced within most of Protestantism. Canon 4 says in part "If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, **he resists the Holy Spirit himself** who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX)" The "I" in TULIP teaches irresistible grace while this Canon says that man can resist the wooing of the Holy Spirit. Canon 8: "If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy......" The idea of baptismal regeneration is again affirmed by this synod. Canon 10 "Concerning the succor (help or assistance) of God. The succor of God is to be ever sought by the regenerate and converted also, so that they may be able to come to a successful end or persevere in good works." This would seem to be in conflict with the P of TULIP in that we must endure and preserve until the end of our life. Canon 13 "Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man **can be restored only by the grace of baptism,** for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it." This is pretty obvious but my point is the Reformers seemed to cherry pick what they agreed with.
What did you mean by “it’s gonna turn into the big panic of 2021 if we are not careful”? What does it have to do with us not being careful? Did God decree this end from the beginning or not? Can we thwart Gods will???
WIth molinism it actually assuages my concerns about people being damned to hell. It seems to me that any reality that God creates, a person would end up being damned because of his/her essence and propensity to turn against god. It would seem that if God could create any reality where someone would be saved by external circumstances, God would be morally obliged by who he is to save him. With Molinism, it seems to me that in any reality that God could create, that person would still choose to turn from God. God created the reality where the most would be saved, and the minimum amount would be lost. That seems to me to be in line with Gods goodness.
Hey, isn't it true that "middle knowledge" cuts at the very aseity of God, his self-sufficiency? To say that there's a part of our being outside of God sounds very much like elevating ourselves to God's place, doesn't it? Am I right?
EXACTLY, SPOT-ON! The Aseity of God is utterly compromised by the idea of "Middle Knowledge"; this man-made philosophy makes God dependent upon His creation, and creatures, and the events that occur in time for His knowledge of it/them.
@@protestantwarrior1411 Hey, I don't know if Molinism is Gnosticism. Because they don't claim knowledge which they exclusively possess by means of some mystical union with the divine, inaccessible to the uninitiated. They claim God has some kind of knowledge (of so called counterfactuals). Indeed, this is problematic as the nature of man and even the nature of all creation, it pulls God down and elevates creation up. That's the issue. I don't think the issue is Gnostic. Is it?
I'd say yes. In this case White and Molinists share the presupposition that the Bible is God's word and the authoritative source for morals and knowledge about God, so the arguments will revolve around how we are to understand the original language and the context and culture surrounding the text so as to have the better interpretation. One who rejects presuppositionalism will still recognize that shared foundation and argue from it. I suppose in a different sense it may be that a presuppositionalist is more interested in fully biblical worldview and will be disinclined to add a philosophy like molinism on top, but transcendental arguments aren't exclusive to one side.
No James. You have never demonstrated that others taught your view of election prior to Augustine. The reason you haven't is because there weren't any church fathers who taught that view prior to Augustine. This is a very well established truth that even many other Calvinists including John Calvin openly admit. You need to learn to be humble enough to just admit when you're wrong. I've never heard you do it even once.
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge Yeah, it is amazing when people elevate the fathers over the Bible. The Fathers wrote on subjects that were being challenged in their day; no one even challenged these doctrines until Pelagius.
All this head banging over competing theologies that JW himself says are not explicitly stated in the New Testament should tell you something. A few points: 1) These discussions are nothing more than a vain attempt to formularize the ideas we have *_about_* God, not the thoughts of God himself. 2) The extent of our knowledge with regard to biblical doctrine is confined to what has been explicitly stated in scripture. 3) If you admire what you esteem to be brilliance and acumen with respect to Calvinist theology, you should know this: God is not impressed with intellectualized discussions of his divine providence, but with obedience to the Gospel.
I don't see how God knowing what you would do in any situation before creation implies that some level your being exists outside of God's creative will. If anything at that stage, you'd exist exclusively within the creative will of God as a potential reality.
Would anyone say that in Jeremiah 29, where God says he sent Israel into exile by using the Babylonians to do it, is another example of what Dr. White is talking about?
Probably, but the Assyrian example is a bit more obvious. In the span of a few passages, God raises up the Assyrians as an instrument of punishment against Israel and then in turn punishes Assyria for their attack on God's people. It highlights that God being in control and using the wickedness of man for good doesn't excuse that wickedness before God. Babylon eventually falls, but it crosses over several books and isn't as self-contained an example.
4:40 “…the brothers wanted to kill Joseph, God keeps that from happening.” As a Calvinist don’t you have to say God decreed that the brothers would desire to kill Joseph and then decreed that He wouldn’t allow them to?
Acts 17 states God sets the time and boundaries of nations in a way that gives everyone the greatest opportunity to find God. Nations are made of people so that means God (being outside time) placed souls throughout history in the time and place he did - so that every soul has the best chance at finding Him. Conversely, it could be the case that souls that never had a chance at knowing Jesus (some remote jungle tribe in the Congo for instance) were made up of souls that God knows would have rejected Him under every possible circumstance. Ultimately, God is all-knowing and all-powerful and he’s the perfect judge of all things and all people. I trust in the Lord.
It is unfortunate that these soft Christians cringe at what happened often in the early church and was exhibited in Paul’s letters - a strong rebuke. Laughing at molinism because of its ridiculousness based on the clear textual refutations like Joseph’s story, Romans 9, etc. doesn’t make this wrong. There are so many proof texts to support a sovereign (actively sovereign for the lurking molinist) God. For example, the Lord in Amos says: “Does a bird fall into a trap on the ground when there is no bait in it? Does a trap spring up from the earth when it captures nothing at all? If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?” Amos 3:5-6 NASB You will need thicker spines than that in the coming days. Here’s the issue - apologists in general sacrifice theology and doctrine to make sure they get a one up in the conversation against an opponent. These apologists do things like make free will necessary over the sovereignty of God or make The Garden story “allegory” to soften the scorn of the militant atheist who doesn’t like a talking snake. What you end up doing by trimming theology and doctrine to fit your apologetics war chest is treading very thin spiritual ice, friends. Especially when that dangerous theology has gained followers and popularity.
What all of this comes down to is that doctor white doesn't believe God is Sovereign enough or powerful enough to truly create a being in his own image with the capacity to freely choose. All of the talk about human beings existing outside of God's creative will if God is capable of knowing something about their potential autonomous choices really boils down to this firm conviction that God is so sovereign that he is powerless to delegate autonomous choice to a creature. Think about that.
Precisely this is one of the reasons I'm not a Calvinist, they ironically claim to have the highest view of God when in reality they have the lowest, they make him out to be a unfair, evil, and unable to create free beings.
That seems like a strawman version of Calvinism. I believe White holds to the London Baptist Confession; chapter 9 explicitly affirms man's free will on Calvinism (as do all the Reformed Confessions), so we would affirm that God creates man with the capacity to freely choose.
JAmes I think you are not thinking it through fully. God can still exert his will on free creatures through Molinism. He didn't turn an evil into good, he willed the good from the beginning of eternity. Let's take a snapshot of Joseph. God knew what his brothers would do, but he also know how pharoah would react to a person like Joseph, he knew about the dreams and knew he would interpret them for joseph, and could have orchestrated the universe to bring about the conditions to fulfill his will. I don't see any contradiction with molinism and with God exerting his will without infringing on our free will. Its actually the only theory that explains free will and gods sovereignty perfectly. I don't see anything that contradicts it and there are many things that support it. There has to be something that explains our free will and gods soveriengty, and using Molinism as a means to structure our understanding around it doesn't strike me as wrong.
I think God knew from eternity past that He would create me. I do not believe there was a set time, post-middle knowledge, when God decided to create me.
FACT: Molinists claim that God's exhaustive, infallible foreknowledge is DEPENDENT on the choices creatures make and the events that occur in time. For that reason alone, it should be rejected as an affront to the Aseity of God. Questions? Let me know. *Soli Deo Gloria*
I'm not sure if Dr. White doesn't understand Molinism or chooses to misrepresent it, but in any case, we need to be careful with language (as we always should be when describing our brothers and sisters in Christ). At 1:24, Dr. White states "how does God deal with these things in light of the fact that this is what he has to deal with". This is a mischaracterization of Molinism. Molinism doesn't entail that God has to deal with "free autonomous creatures", rather that he chooses to. God could have created a world full of morally insignificant puppets or perhaps he could create a world with totally autonomous creatures and left them to their devices. On Molinism, he did neither. He created a world which is consistent both with his own Will and that of his creatures, which gives foundation to the moral depravity of humans (we ARE responsible for our actions) while at the same time recognizing God's complete sovereignty. On a side note, I wonder what part of Isaiah 10 Dr. White chose to preach on. "Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless. What will you do on the day of reckoning, when disaster comes from afar? To whom will you run for help? Where will you leave your riches?"
But your reduction of the claims of Molinism also apply in Reformed theology, yet clearly they are two systems making very different claims. You aren't telling the whole story. And did you bring up Isaiah 10 for any particular reason? Why wouldn't White preach that part? It is right in line with Reformed theology on the law, perhaps especially so given Durbin is a theonomist.
Look, we can go back and forth on this all day, but at the end of the day, predestination is self defeating. Is James White just predestined to think the way he does? Is it the same case for Frank Turek? The fact that we can even contemplate if predestination is true or not is proof that it is self defeating.
Predestination is taught clearly in Ephesians 1 and Romans 8. I don't see how you can get around that when the word "predestination" is literally in the text of those chapters.
@@jacobgarcia4826 If you’re willing to admit that you don’t do anything at all, then okay, you can do it if you wish. But no one is willing to do that. No one is actually willing to admit that free will doesn’t exist.
Because God foreknew you and every possible counterfactual about you prior to his creative decree, it means you are "outside" of his mind? What in the (possible) world?!
Middle knowledge. These are "truths" that do not have to be true, but are true without God being the primary cause of them. Does that answer your question?
I don’t know about you guys, but I could get down with a Molinist more than I could get down with an Arminian. I feel like Molinists are much closer than Arminians to the truth, but regardless, I do believe anyone who trusts in Jesus for their salvation, knows that their salvation is not their own, etc., I’m happy to call them my brother or sister in Christ. Do I think Calvin is right? Yes, amen. But I don’t need every Christian to be on board with it. I don’t need everyone to have the same soteriology as me. I’m leaning much more the way Piper talks about it in his books. Would I like all Christians to be CalvInists? Yes. But is it the end of the world? No. Only God is going to open people’s eyes to the doctrines of grace. The way I was convinced of it was never someone arguing with me online. It was God opening my eyes as I read scripture.
This comment deserves significantly more likes. But a reasonable comment tends to fall by the wayside compared to the argumentative ones that fail to display the grace and love of Christ.
Abraham did not exercise faith (as far as we’re told) until God called him. And God sovereignly drew Israel out of Abraham’s seed. Israel did not choose to be chosen. God chose Israel. The pattern exists throughout Scripture.
This is incorrect. The Hebrew word used in Genesis 50 is never used to mean “weave.” Rather, it is “chashab,” which means “to think, plan, esteem, calculate, invent, make a judgment, imagine, count.” With this in mind, the use of the word Intend is quite accurate with the given context.
"If God can know what you're going to do in any given circumstance before God decrees to create you, then you have a level of being that is outside the created will of God." So are you saying that before God decreed to create man he didn't know what each of us would do? Meaning he didn't have complete knowledge and he learned something new?
Hang on...if God chooses, out of all possible worlds, to create the one in which the most will be saved, and if the people of Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented if those miracles had been done there, why didn't He choose to create a world in which someone did those miracles there? Seems like, on Molinism, this would have been a preferable world...
So check this out..Can it be , that a God so wondrous and so magnificent, can be in 100% control and still 100% have a free will for man. Thats a miracle. Right? Hard to comprehend but what about this?: God did elect before the foundation of the world. But, that doesn't mean that he didnt play the whole story in his mind, and then make decisions about the future , waaaayyyy before he created the first speck of dirt!!!
Sure, but once you flesh out all the details, you basically end up at Calvinism. As the Westminster Confession points out in chapter 3.1, God ordains all that comes to pass, and in doing so, he establishes man's free will and the liberty and contingency of second causes.
oracleoftroy Calvinism dictates that faith is given by God, since its a work. But faith isnt a work, its a choice. Grace is the gift thats been given to those who have faith. We are saved by the law of faith, not of the law of works, because faith isnt a work. And if faith isnt a work, then personal choice to have faith doesn’t violate Gods sovereignty. For example, was Judas saved? He performed miracles when Jesus gave the apostles the authority. He produced fruit, but he fell away. So the question is, was that predetermined by God, or did God foreknew that was gonna happen.
Daniel Kepler when we say faith is a work we don’t mean a work of the law or merit you might have that misunderstanding, but to the last question both, but that’s not the right questions. The question should be does God predestine because of what he foreknows? Or does he foreknow because he’s already predestined it
@@danielkepler1023 Personally, I think whether faith is a work is really two questions that get lumped together. Is faith a work? Whose work is it? Biblically (and if course Calvinism agrees), the answer is that faith is a work, and that it is God's work given to man, not man's work that God looks on with partiality. John 6: 29 Jesus answered them, This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent. Heb 12: 2 Jesus is said to "author" or "pioneer" or "found" our faith, an action verb indicating work. And if course, it is part of the package of salvation by grace through faith given by God to his people. Biblically, faith is a work, but people rush to claiming that it is not a work because they want faith to be to man's credit and know that works salvation is unbiblical. Reducing faith to a mere choice seems way too reductionistic and not biblical. Faith is itself a verb, you do faith, you live a life of faith. There are choices involved, but faith is much more than the choices. We are saved through faith because Christ did the work, and our faith rests in Christ as our satisfaction for God's wrath for our sin. We are all lawbreakers, and that guilt condemns us if Christ has not redeemed us. Judas was never saved. Pharoahs magicians also performed miracles, so that is far from sufficient proof. Jesus explicitly says Judas is the son of perdition, and specifically gives as a reason the fulfillment of prophesy. If course it was predestined and forknown if it was prophesied. What fruit of the spirit do you claim Judas produce? What love, joy, peace, etc did he show when he aided in Jesus' murder?
Turek's answer makes God a reactive force, as if He was surprised by the actions of David's brothers. God had to come in behind them to save...not sure what , because the free will of man wasn't known at the time. But how can this be? How can God intend it for good if He didn't intend it from the beginning? Turek makes no sense. Ex post facto can't be intended ex ante. It's after the fact. IF it was God’s intention to clean up the mess, it would be logical to say, "You meant it for evil, but now God will turn it to good. " but it can't be intended after the thing has already occured.
Do you think that someone who really excepts and loves Jesus even tho they believe in Molinism can still go to heaven and if they can what would it take for the believer have to believe in to not be saved
I think it isn't Biblical, but it doesn't contradict essential doctrines of the faith. It is more a speculative addition to the Bible to explain things where Calvinists prefer holding to what the bible says explicitly. To not be saved, one would have to knowingly deny core doctrine about the nature of God (trinity, incarnation, etc) or salvation (adding works, denying our sinfulness, etc).
@ 9:10 No Molinist of repute has an issue with stating that Middle Knowledge is a "knowledge God has before he wills to create you." Read any oft cited scholar on this to see. So, you're lying.
Its also important to point out that the apostles didnt really understand Jesus much let alone God to the point to argue his attributes accurately. It also only needs to be 1 verse to support an idea as long as it doesnt contradict any other verse.
I reckon give a preacher who's thinking on his feet, in front a bunch of people, about a difficult subject, a bit more grace. I think James White would do better to support fellow brothers in Christ who are trying to spread the word.
James… at 12:00 you talk about how Jesus is “worried” about the people’s hard hearted ness… on your view he’s the one who chose to make them hard hearted. He’s not concerned at all. Everything is predestined
@@toolegittoquit_001 I worship the God of Israel, who had zero determinism. I worship the God of the early church (up to 1500) who had zero determination. I guess I worship God as He is known for literally thousands of years. You worship God as defined by the gnostics and Manicheans.
Would that be a bad thing per se? I seem to recall several instances in the Bible of an apostle that needed heavy criticism... But the apostles never taught Molinism, so I'm not sure White would need to criticize them over this issue.
Off late your line of arguments, is very unchristian to say the least, if you feel your fellow apologist is in a supposed Error, do you have to approach it, this way as if it were a rebuttal, is it to correct error or put a shade on one's credential if they disagree with you on doctrinal issues or might have a different interpretation. You could have equally addressed the issue without necessarily playing his video, and teach your version of molinsm
@@oracleoftroy this is about the Christian approach to correcting error; to me that is my concern, you might see it other way but we are all entitled to our opinions that's why I expressed mine. James White himself chastised David Wood on moral/Christian grounds on how he went about a banter with Muslim Apologist. We can as well draw his attention to the same moral/Christian grounds in also correcting errors. 1 Corinthians 9:22 [22]To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.
And this is why I see in house disagreements such as this to be pointless and significantly fail in uncovering the truths behind one's teaching. Before I even knew there was the coined term called 'monolism' I used my understanding of the Bible and logic to view the sovereignty of God present in all counterfactuals of reality, that is not placing an agenda outside of God's decree, that is impossible because God has already decreed all life to come before the foundations of the earth!!! Hence I believe that means he can very well see and orchestrate His work into every alternative path this life could have played into with every decision that was made even if that life would cease to exist...to say other wise is to say you can understand God enough that he doesn't account for what 'would have'... we just don't know that... I just think there's bigger fish to fry if you gonna have an internal disagreement... and it's cynical and illogical for him to attack Turek's views as malicious and unbiblical as these views don't directly or indirectly affect salvation in the slightest.
It can be unbiblical (I would say it is) without being a salvation issue (I would say it isn't one). Realizing that God knows counter-factuals isn't uniquely Molinist; that's true on Calvinism as well. The differences come when we introduce middle knowledge.
@@oracleoftroy I'm not sure on Molina's initial thoughts on God's sovereignty, that's why I don't say I'm a molinist. But there seems to be confusion here, the knowing of counterfactuals is referred to as middle knowledge. Though I see that the calvinist ascribes the assertion of middle knowledge to indirectly assume that human responsibility is inevitably guiding God's decisions, which makes sense and creates the unbiblical precedent, but we can't discern and especially deny God knowing these things, it could very well have been orchestrated by God but not manifested into reality. All I'm saying is I rather be on the sideline and say "its possible, for reasons God only knows"... than to sit on James' throne of conjectures and assume God's intent.
@@renchyxii2925 _"But there seems to be confusion here, the knowing of counterfactuals is referred to as middle knowledge."_ Only on Molinism. Classical Christianity has placed God's knowledge of counterfactuals as part of his natural knowledge, and Reformed Christians agree with this. _"Though I see that the calvinist ascribes the assertion of middle knowledge to indirectly assume that human responsibility is inevitably guiding God's decisions, which makes sense and creates the unbiblical precedent, but we can't discern and especially deny God knowing these things, it could very well have been orchestrated by God but not manifested into reality."_ I'm not sure where you see Reformed Christians doing this. We categorically deny middle knowledge (which involves a lot more than counterfactuals) and I would agree that middle knowledge is an unbiblical precedent. I'm also unclear what is entailed by God orchestrating something but it not manifesting into reality. Are you saying God sometimes fails to accomplish something he sets out to do? _"All I'm saying is I rather be on the sideline and say "its possible, for reasons God only knows"... than to sit on James' throne of conjectures and assume God's intent."_ I agree with this sentiment. But if God declares his intent, I'd rather side with White and state that intent than remain silent where the Bible speaks. In either case, we need to turn to the Bible to see what it does and doesn't state.
If Jesus is God and thus all-knowing, then the passage referring to miracles done in Sodom and Gomorra might well imply a deep insight into God's foreknowledge.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Matthew 7:18 Molonism comes from the Jesuits. The Jesuits are a bad tree. Case closed.
This kid is ridiculous for asking that question in an evangelistic apologetics event. Typical Calvinist, cares more to be right than to do what is right...
Why is it ridiculous? That seems to be a major hole in the theory, and as Christians we ought to be ready to give a defense for the entire Bible, not just the parts that are easy to talk about.
James White talks so far over my head I get very little from his teachings. He also bashes fellow brothers who are spreading the gospel to people all over the world. Is that really what we are supposed to do as fellow believers? And Calvinism makes no sense.
Molinism is a complicated philosophical subject and is tricky to jump into if you aren't familiar with the issues involved. Nothing wrong with that. The Bible gives a principle that "iron sharpens iron." As we wrestle with the Word and argue over what it means, it strengthens and sharpens us. Neither side is bashing each other or being mean, disagreement is not 'bashing'.
@@toolegittoquit_001 I don't disagree with your conclusion regarding molinism, but I do disagree with reaching it in a way that doesn't love Christ enough to obey his commandments to not bear false witness and to present multiple witnesses when making charges against another. Being complicated does not in and of itself make molinism false.
I heard him mention before that Calvin and Edward’s are two of the greatest minds that God has redeemed. I truly think he need to not leave himself off of this list lol
@@daddada2984 Westminster Confession chapter 9 gives a good overview of the Reformed position on man's free will. Keeping that in mind helps. WCF 5.4 states: "The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; *yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God,* who, being most holy and righteous, neither is, nor can be, the author or approver of sin." Likewise, 3.1 affirms that God ordains all that comes to pass, and so God establishes man's free will and the liberty and contingency of second causes by what he ordains, and so God is not the author of sin. White is a Reformed Baptist, so I probably should have used the London Baptist confession, but the two confessions are identical or very similar on most points, so there shouldn't be a substantial difference. Anyway, if you are interested in getting a full picture of Reformed Theology, I'd suggest reading the Westminster Confession as a starting place; it covers all the important bits and isn't overwhelmingly long.
@Josiah Howell yeah, he's a Lutheran in his belief systems. Lutherans are 100% Augustinians. He believed that people were regenerated and saved when they were baptized and he believed that people could walk away from God and apostatize. He believed that infant baptism actually saved babies and that babies who were baptized who died went to hell. He believed that people could repent and get baptized. Calvinism uses his beliefs, but Calvinism is not even close to Augustinianism. Martin Luther was closer yo the Catholic Chirch than he was to John Calvin. So, yes, have heard of him and actually read and studied his beliefs.
This poor young people dealing with myh and superstition as if it was reality, instead of receiving instruction in science and technology for a useful life in the 21st century. Shame on these old goats.
These poor young people treating the human mind as the ultimate source of knowledge and treating what we rule to be true as truth. Those poor souls who hate to think that there is something beyond what they can comprehend.
I can rebut this ignoramus (Mr. White) at any given turn. His line of reasoning and the nature of his fallacious thought is a simple exercise of debunking.
WasLostButNowAmFound I’m just giving him a chance to refute the ignoramus(his words not mine, I truly respect Dr. White as he’s helped me so much) by calling into his podcast. :-) Thanks for the heads up.
"Tradition can be such a strong filter that you don't hear what you're saying". That is a great point to remember. I've seen that in my own experience, and it can be difficult to overcome.
For those who are confused by all of this ‘middle knowledge’ stuff (proponents of Molinism tend to muddy the water only to make it seem deep), I want to offer this simple explanation: Molinism (or ‘middle knowledge’) places the knowledge of God somewhere between these two extremes (the fact God is absolutely sovereign and omniscient is something Molinists conveniently ignore): 1) God knows who will be saved (because He chose them before He laid the foundations of the world - Rom 8,9, Eph 1…); and 2) God knows not who will be saved (because that depends entirely on them ‘freely choosing’) So, Molinism (‘middle knowledge’) is the idea that God will know who will be saved, only IF and WHEN the sinner ‘freely’ chooses to be saved… Ie God’s knowledge of the saved is contingent upon the capricious whim of the sinner, driven by the sinner’s ’free choice’ and circumstance! So, God will come to know His own, not because He sovereignly ORDAINED the salvation of anyone, but because the sinner FREELY WILLED it to happen at the ‘right time’ Molinism is really a theosophical attempt to somehow preserve the ‘sovereignty of man’ (properly known as ‘Autonomianism’) while paying lip service to the Lordship of God… Molinism is an utterly unBiblical and philosophical bankrupt idea!
![Megan Thee Stallion - Roc Steady (feat. Flo Milli) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HozPPyqW0dY/mqdefault.jpg)
James white is a vessel of mercy clearly redeemed by God. This brother is a giant in the faith.
He’s an extremely arrogant man, needs to focus more on Jesus teachings.
He’s got major blind spots, though, when it comes to church government, baptism and the objects of baptism, and apparently can’t see, or won’t see how unbiblical they are even though he’s friends with Jason Wallace in Salt Lake City who he’s ministered for and with.
Wallace makes a outstanding point in some of his videos about how there’s no evidence for baptism by immersion before 1500 and Baptist always like to ignore verses like Numbers 8:7, Ezekiel 36:25 and Isaiah 52:15.
Amen! He clearly can stand by Gods word and other than Leighton and Andy he is very respectable to brothers within debate and reprove
Thank you Mr white for standing true to the truth of scripture !
@@samsdad110 The word baptism itself means "immersion". It is used as a metaphor of being buried with Christ. How in the world does sprinkling with water mirror burial? It doesn't. The Didache, which is one of the earliest Christian texts, prescribed baptism by sprinkling only if sufficient water was not available for submerging.
@@samuelrosenbalm, Exactly right!..and we are clearly told that John the Baptist Goes baptize in a place near Salim because there is plenty of water there. You don’t need plenty of water if you’re merely sprinkling people. You could use a tiny creek or a well. You need plenty of water for immersion. The Bible also says Jesus came up out of the water. Why would you even need to be in the water to be sprinkled? Baptism means immersion and that’s what they did. They changed to sprinkling when they started baptizing babies. Because it was cruel to dunk an unknowing baby under water. Then they started just sprinkling adults as well. Never do the sprinkling Christians ever have to go to a place where there is plenty of water. Like John the Baptist did and like people who immerse still do. Some people won’t give up their traditions. Even when the Biblical truth is plain.
I love this brothers sound biblical doctrine of God's sovereignty and providence.
He does an excellent job at focusing on the Glory of God.
oh wow now I know why the main channel has comments disabled.
Care to elaborate?
@@charlesa.monagan4159 hm, odd. When I commented this the comments were filled with negative ones.
I appreciate the apologetic ministry of Frank Turek and I think you guys would make a great team on a debate stage against some atheist. I also think this is a valid critique of his view of Molinism and I appreciate your input on this topic. #TurekWhiteDebateTeam
Honestly, I did not know Turek is a molinist. I thought he was Arminian. I don't know if that is mutually exclusive or compatible.
Jesus' comments in Matt 11:20 completely changed my views on soteriology a few years back:
"you, Capernaum, will have it worse on the day of judgment than Sodom and Gomorrah"
Yet Jesus - who knew from the beginning who would not believe (Jn 6:64) still chose to preach there.
Why??? He already knew in advance that all it would do is intensify their hellfire.
WLC's explanation for this passage is to chuckle and dismiss it as hyperbolic language. At that point, I threw out Molinism and never looked back.
Let's recap:
1. Jesus did indeed know from the beginning of time who would not believe (Jn 6:64. Direct quote)
2. Jesus was the one who destroyed S&G (Gen 19:24-25)
3. According to the words of our all-knowing Lord, Jesus could have gone into S&G and preached, and they would have repented. Yet He chose instead to destroy them. (While destroying S&G, our omniscient Lord thought "Capernaum will have it worse than S&G ..and WLC will chuckle that I said so". Not a good look for WLC.)
4. Jesus deliberately chose to preach in Capernaum, knowing full well in advance that they would reject Him...
5. ...and therefore be guilty of a worse hell than they were already destined for.
How does Molinism explain those counterfactuals?
Molinism cannot explain Jesus' behavior here. Period. Full stop. (Nor can Arminianism or Provisionalism)
Only Calvinism's doctrine of Limited Atonement can explain Jesus' behavior.
Wow, this is compelling. I’ll be checking it out thoroughly. I’m surprised I’ve never heard a prominent apologist use this.
The FUNDAMENTAL question we should be asking in the discussion of God's Decretive Will is: How Does God Know Stuff?
Every answer that synergists give, whether it's Molinism (the myth of "Middle Knowledge"), or some sort of Empiricism (God "observes" all things at once...etc.) is ultimately going to make God's Omniprescience (His exhaustive, infallible foreknowledge) DEPENDENT upon the creation, creatures, and the events that occur in time.
So, for example, I know of two different videos by two different proponents of Molinism who state exactly that!
Dr. William Lane Craig says explicitly, "God's knowledge is DEPENDENT upon the events that occur in time."
Pastor Mike Winger says explicitly, "God's knowledge is DEPENDENT upon the choices I make.".
This is exactly why the Reformed, like Francis Turretin in his "Institutes of Elenctic Theology," rejected the idea of "Middle Knowledge" and said that in the system of Molinism, God's knowledge is DEPENDENT on the creation.
God's knowledge (His Omniprescience) is dependent on Himself ALONE!
All God's knowledge is derived from His own self (Aseity), and is dependent on nothing external to Himself.
Ryan Gallmeier how is that something can be external to God but that his knowledge can not be dependent on it? That same logic could be used to say that nothing is external to God at all.
@@bradom8052 What is external to God? Everything that exists is either God or created by God and thus contingent on God. If by 'external' you just mean 'not God', then I think you missed Ryan's point.
@@bradom8052 Omniscience and Omniprescience are part of the Essential Attributes of God (His Aseity).
You are apparently asserting, without any shame or embarrassment, that God is DEPENDENT upon His creation and creatures for His knowledge.
That logic cannot be used to say that "nothing is external to God," because we are not talking about Ontology (the very "being-ness" of things).
Scripture makes it clear that God is the Creator (and He has Attributes which are essential to Him, like, Omniscience/Omniprescience), and WE are creatures (something "other" than Him and His eternally essential Attributes).
So, you're attempted argument is flawed.
But what is more disturbing is that you apparently still think God's knowledge is DEPENDENT on YOU!
See how arrogant that is? Man exalting himself above his Creator?
I hope you see.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
Ryan Gallmeier so because i have recognized the color of a flower. That flower has now stolen my glory, because my knowledge of that flower is not dependent on me? Also you cannot claim that God is all knowing if he cannot know things that are dependent upon something else. That would mean anything with a brain is all knowing.
@@bradom8052 Are you God? If not, why are you comparing yourself to God? Why do you argue as if creator God is exactly like a created human? God made the flower and humans. You didn't make the flower. Your example is not applicable.
As always Dr. White you are on point and defending the glory of God!
lol, that's funny
@@huntsman528 funny? How?
@@repentorperish1386 A: that White is on point about anything. That is funny. B: that God's glory needs defending from beliefs that God decreed the majority of the church to hold. God doesn't need to be defended from the evil things that he forced the church to believe. God wants them to believe those things.
@@huntsman528 thats unfortunate
@@repentorperish1386 unfortunate that God's glory doesn't require defending from us?
"Tradition can be such a strong filter that you don't hear what you're saying". That is a great point to remember. I've seen that in my own experience, and it can be difficult to overcome.
While I greatly respect Frank's work, I have to agree with James White here when he makes the distinction between redemptive action versus God's decreed outcome regardless of the mechanism (good or evil). Dr. RC
At no stage in my 45 year walk with the Lord has the Devil’s assault upon the Lordship of God been as intense as it’s been of late through people like William Craig, Leighton Flowers, Frank Turek… So, I sincerely appreciate your pushback James and your faithfulness to the Truth!
Frank: "You have to evaluate them no matter when they emerge"
James: "So I guess what he is saying is that 'theological novums are cool. People come up with them everyday!'"
James proceeds to respond to the paraphrase that he gave Frank and point out how ridiculous it is.
I would agree with James that this would be ridiculous, but that's clearly not what Frank said here. I have long been on a neutral stance on this issue because I have seen powerful arguments on both sides. James himself has provided some decent points as well, but it's times like this that make it hard to listen to him.
No charity or humility in trying to represent the other person's perspective. This doesn't convince anyone who is on the fence, just hardens those on the side that agree with him by using a mocking and flippant tone. He seems to be kinder to those outside of the faith than those who he should be in fellowship with.
John 13:35
"By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
We gotta get back to this.
True. The last thing we need is see brothers in Christ acting in a cavalier manner towards each other when they should be acting like, I don't know, grow ups and talk it out like, maybe proper BROTHERS?!
Kinda sad to see well known Christians acting like this toward other Christians. There are better ways to communicate truth that don't compromise unity. You can start with having a level-headed discussion about it.
I wont even lie this is Facts
I just don't understand why James needs to retaliate with a cynical response when having an in house disagreement, it's like he tries to isolate anything Turek says to promote an agenda that he is propagating unbiblical and malicious teaching, which is far from the case.
Why not say "I see your point, and disagree respectfully."
Yeah having convictions is a bad thing, lets all sit on the fence together and never reach any real conclusions on anything.
As Paul loved Peter and rebuked him before the whole church.
God does not learn, we can only make choices consistent with our nature, fallen or regenerate. Arminian apologists are so unclear.... and this kids question was clear and direct, Turek pulled an olé
I'm genuinely surprised Frank Turek wasn't familiar with Isaiah 10. As soon as the kid said it, I recognized it.
Seems to me that anyone wishing to show competency on the topic of theodicy ought to be familiar with this passage since it puts God firmly in the driver's seat of the actions of a wicked king. (Dittos for Jer 51, btw).
For those who are confused by all of this ‘middle knowledge’ stuff (proponents of Molinism tend to muddy the water only to make it seem deep), I want to offer this simple explanation:
Molinism (or ‘middle knowledge’) places the knowledge of God somewhere between these two extremes (the fact God is omniscient is something they conveniently ignore):
1) God knows who will be saved (because He chose them before He laid the foundations of the world - Rom 9, Eph 1…); and
2) God knows not who will be saved (because that depends entirely on their ‘free choosing’)
So, Molinism (‘middle knowledge’) is the idea that God will know who is saved only when the sinner ‘freely’ chooses to be saved, ie God’s knowledge is contingent upon the capricious whim of the sinner (driven by the ‘power of the sinner’s ability to freely choose for himself’, apart from God)!
Molinism is really a theosophical attempt to somehow preserve the ‘sovereignty of man’ (properly known as ‘Autonomianism’) while paying lip service to the Lordship of God… An utterly unBiblical and philosophical bankrupt idea!
The doctrine of concurrence has been very helpful for me to understand God better.
He says molinism is not directly taught by the apostles... Kind of like Sovereign decrees of God are not taught by the apostles. Both are just ways of trying to synthesize and understand the various passages on Free Will and God's sovereignty. The only difference is that the notion of God's sovereignty decreeing that a person will do evil because he wants them to because it brings him the most pleasure for them to burn forever in order to show his glory is totally inconsistent with plain statements of scripture and with God's revealed character throughout the entire Bible.
It's true. God says He takes NO joy in PUNISHING the wicked, only that they repent and come to Him. Wouldnt he just MAKE people all come to Him then so that there would be no wickedness to punish, to begin with? The answer is a big YES, He can, of course, He can. However, he is allowing people to choose and that is beautiful. I mean Just cuz he won't force people to do things does not mean that he cannot do them, to begin with. I can jump up and down while writing this text but I won't. Does not mean that I cannot perform the act. God allows evil, yes, and his wrath is abundant as seen in the Exodus. But knowing God takes no pleasure in punishing the Wicked, would it not make more sense then that he force the Egyptians to reject their gods and follow him instead of FORCE the Pharaoh not to let them go. Why would God even try to convince the pharaoh if He was the one who forced him to not repent in the first place? Just cuz he shows us his love and care doesn't mean he still isn't Holy, wrathful, and justified its okay to revel in the FACT that Jesus Christ LOVES me that He would die now I have a duty to live my life as best I can in his name even though it won't be perfect. Kiss the hand of the Son lest he finds displeasure in you and be destroyed. Makes little sense if a person has no choice but to believe in the first place. But what's most important here however is that we recognize that these guys still have a love for Christ, the fear of God, and are being led by the Holy Spirit to do works of our Father's kingdom. They believe in the Virgin marry, they believe the Lord died on the cross for sinners and was resurrected, in all His miracles and the sins. I do not think we should throw hatred and foul words or death wishes for others to go to Hell since 1. Jesus said we should Love our enemy even if they curse us 2. We want to serve the same God here and our disagreements are not so radical like getting drunk is not a sin or I can have sex outside of marriage. We love God and all that he is and Fear Him as we should but we love that fear because we know it is right and just and keeps us where we are meant to be, where he wants us to be. In His arms.
Church fathers were heavily sold on Gods sovereign decree and predestination - all of them. “2.1 Blessed and noble, then, are all the martyrdoms which, >>according to the will of God
Strawman.
Nope, that is not what James says at all. God is not a monster or sadistic. Also, if God is all-knowing, all-powerful, knows the end from the beginning then it is consistent to say every evil that occurs is allowed by him, but cause he not man is autonomous. God restarians evil why will it be strange he allows evil. And the bible tells us that all God does is for his glory, including allowing evil. And if he knows all the ngs before they happen, yes we can say he's decreed them before the foundation of the earth.
@@JesusRodriguez-gu1wv who are you talking about? Praying to mary is absolutely evil
Ugh. So sick of people trying to deny God's will and Power to accomplish this will. Pride...the original sin.
The sovereignty of God is stated even more clearly in Genesis 45:8, where it is not only stated as a difference in intent but of authorship of the act. The kid asking the question is wiser than Turek (Psalm 119:99).
Notice how tureck says “I don’t find anything in the Bible that would prevent God doing that (monilism)” but the objection made by the student is Scripture that directly brings the objection to the foundations of his monilistic perspective. It’s literally right under his nose and he cannot smell it.
it would be dishonest to say that he is ignoring scripture.
if you watch Franks stuff. he has thought stuff through. Doesn't mean he is correct. but to say that he has just missed a passage doesn't cut it.
@@joshs2986 point is he is missing it because of his presuppositions, it does not mean he's careless...
@@jonathandoran2623 possibly or he could have gone through it and have a different interpretation.
@@joshs2986 an inconsistent interpretation, which is no interpretation at all.
@@SickestDisciple Respectfully disagee :)
God says he knew you before you were born. Thats scriptural. He knows every hair and its number before creation!
hmmm interesting
Knowing you before you're born and before creation are 2 different things. When we say before creation we mean before the decree to create in genesis. Knowing you before you're born is still after the decree to create chronologically. If I'm missing your point then my apologies
Dr. White, I am not a theologian, but the argument that the Apostles didn't teach something makes it invalid seems wrong to me. The Apostles didn't teach the trinity directly, nor did they teach Calvanism directly, but we gleen this from the teaching and it is consistent with their teaching. There are many things like this, including Molinism.
There is no such thing as middle knowledge..
I agree
Ikr... But many things people believe in nowadays don't actually exist, yet they still believe it.
I'm not choosing sides necessarily, but could I suggest that the middle knowledge of people that God has before he wills to create them originates in God himself, who knows himself perfectly, and makes people in his image. He certainly knows counterfactuals, but the argument should start not with God's knowledge of counterfactuals, but rather with his perfect knowledge of himself and thus his perfect knowledge of those who would be made in his image.
Agreed, but that no longer allows for libertarian free will, which is the entire point of Molinism. I personally think of it as God knows all logical possibilities, and actualizes the logical possibilities of the world and people based on his nature.
@@LinebackerTuba Maintaining libertarian free will may be the whole point for some Molinists, but it may I don't know if that's a fair broad categorization of all Molinists. I think they are, like all of us, looking for "meaningful" free will. They simply have a hard time finding it in hard determinism. It's an understandable struggle, even if you don't agree. My suggestion is just that we go back and forth arguing what events and decisions God knows ahead of time when maybe God's knowledge of us is more personal and more complete. Maybe he just knows US (isn't this what "foreknown" means?). And because we're are made in his image, he knows the integrity of our nature and every woven fiber of our meaningful freedom with the same detail and perfection as he knows photosynthesis and molecular physics. I'm not reducing our "free will" to scientific collisions, I'm just suggesting that the nature of God's knowledge is far more personal and complete than just knowing the outcome of some event. He certainly knows that, but what composes that knowledge isn't simply his future-telling ability--it's his intimate knowledge of the nature and integrity of the creatures involved. And this is not a knowledge that could only come from outside of himself like Dr. White is suggesting. He knows himself and he made us in his image. So he knows what we need and long for. And he knows how those needs and longings are corrupted by sin. But the knowledge still originates in himself. Some Molinists may be arguing for an unhindered and uninfluenced libertarian free will as you've suggested, and to that end, I'm not trying to defend them. Just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
@@jaybeevh3778 With Molinism, yes there are some people by the strict definition that aren't concerned with LFW, but I do think it is fair to say that most promoters of Molinism do so to keep LFW intact (I could be wrong, I am open to counterexamples). I don't think there is any ill intent on their part. I agree that they are just trying to make sense of things and determinism is difficult for them to swallow/make sense of.
As for the rest, I don't think we have any disagreements. My take is not incompatible with yours. My take in one sense restates omniscience, but it also show how omniscience and God's role as sole creator (actualizer) imply determinism. Many deeper insights can be drawn from that framework. I'm unclear what baby I threw out with bathwater.
One additional question is, what do you mean by a person's nature? Is it something inherent to them, or is it something that develops over time?
@@LinebackerTuba You may be right about promoters of molinism. I was probably reacting internally to my own appreciation for some of what molinism has unearthed for me, though I don't feel it necessary to fight for LFW myself. Also, I think I meant that middle knowledge or counterfactuals are the baby being thrown out because they are being utilized by a majority of molinists (as I grant may be the case) to argue for LFW. I think there is some value to the idea of middle knowledge. Dr White was attempting to throw middle knowledge out by stating "what it does is limit the freedom of God's drecree based on the content of middle knowledge, and where that content comes from, no one knows" and that the only way this framework works, "is to make man something that is defined by something outside of God." This seems to be the main thrust of this argument against molinism (though there are others, I understand). I simply disagree with his conclusion about the source of middle knowledge, that it can only originate outside of God. I say, when it comes to man and the choices he makes, God can certainly know all of man perfectly before he wills to create them, if his will is to create man in His own image and likeness. I say man's nature is both inherent to him (created in God's image) and influenced over time (subject to the corrupting forces of man's sin). Though, this started by quipping that it is not as clear cut as Dr. White states, that middle knowledge means that there are some things about us that originate outside of us and God, and on that basis we should reject middle knowledge. There is another possibiliy.
@@jaybeevh3778 I agree, middle knowledge does not imply that knowledge the come from outside of God, LFW does (I think Dr. White is assuming the combination of the two when he speak, which can be confusing). I too find middle knowledge to be a helpful concept when making sense of how God acts.
Do you think God has LFW, and if so what do you think is meant by that? (You seem like a cool person, just curious what your thoughts are)
This seems like a dishonest view on Turek and molinism. I love James whites debates but he sometimes comes off like he has very little humility
Sometimes?
James white is still om the high horse of Calvinism this and 5 point adherents have already been debunked.
I agree 100%. If you’re not as learned as him, or aren’t a Calvinist, you are an idiot.
bob 42255 - In danger of what? Being correct? I’m sorry, most of this man’s content comes across as smug. Sure he thinks he’s got some weird ass version of certainty, but that’s the maybe more the real danger. A lot of bad stuff happens(ed) in the name of “I am most certain this is how god is and wants us to act”.
bob 42255 - “a modest or low view of one's own importance” exactly what I judge he’s lacking. Sure you can appeal that “preaching the truth” is always going to come across as smug to the non-believer (answer not a fool to his folly). But to that, I’d claim this is a cowardly way to hide behind the Bible.
I’m not judging him as an unbeliever or a “false” teacher. I’d actually say he just might be teaching what the Bible actually plainly reads and can be understood to be. But there is the issue for me. Holding to the fundie view is only becoming harder and harder to defend both culturally and experientially.
Frank Turek comes out of Southern seminary here in Charlotte so that should tell you everything.
Unfortunately, a lot of naïve people ask him to speak as I heard him do so last spring it men’s prayer breakfast and he fumbled the question that I asked, but I should’ve asked a tougher one about the Saul of tarsus conversion, and who was responsible for it and how it happened. In other words, it wasn’t his free-will decision, now was it??
James White: I am a Christian and struggling with this I would love if you could answer. You said, God made you the way he did on purpose with the parents he placed you with on purpose. So, for the child that is born to parents that sell that child into sex slavery at the age of two, who is then abused until the age of four and then after no longer being of use is murdered. Why did God create that child the way He did in the hands of those parents knowing what would happen? And where is there any redemption in that?
I know this is a tough and nasty question, but I think also very valid and I would appreciate any kind of response. Thank you.
The problem is your question. We only know what is true in some situations. We don't know the details of every situation and certainly can't answer hypotheticals. So you are asking an unanswerable question. So the real question is what do the scriptures say? If they say x then x it is, whether we fully understand it or not.
@@Phill0old no problem with the question. the problem is your trying to defend Calvinism.
@@donhaddix3770 I'm defending scripture and I believe what it says.
@@Phill0old and I do not accept Calvinistic interpretation.
@@donhaddix3770 I haven't "interpreted" it. I have read the plain English. I have checked the Greek. What more can I do? You tell me that when it says that Jesus said "No man can come to me unless...." He means that they can? Maybe it isn't Calvinism you don't like eh?
How long did it take for the Calvinism to be recognized?
Immediately if you count the teachings of Jesus and Paul and John and the rest of the New Testament. The main issues involved weren't really challenged until Pelagius, so about 400 years for it to be questioned and the church response. The Canons of Orange is around 529 AD which affirms at least 4 out of the 5 points of Calvinism, so that would be the upper limit.
Enemies of Reformed Theology named it after a 16th century man, but the ideas are much older.
@@oracleoftroy I know I'm way late to this discussion but I wanted to make a couple of points.
I don't think the Reformers can say they are in continuity with the early Church Fathers. Aside from the Reformers mainly going with Augustinian theology, which is a mistake, they often don't hold to the totality of those Canons. For example;
Canon 5 says "If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly **and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism** -if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles,"
This Canon affirms baptismal regeneration, which no Calvinist would affirm. This synod also affirmed the celibacy of priests, another thing not practiced within most of Protestantism.
Canon 4 says in part "If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, **he resists the Holy Spirit himself** who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX)"
The "I" in TULIP teaches irresistible grace while this Canon says that man can resist the wooing of the Holy Spirit.
Canon 8: "If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy......"
The idea of baptismal regeneration is again affirmed by this synod.
Canon 10 "Concerning the succor (help or assistance) of God. The succor of God is to be ever sought by the regenerate and converted also, so that they may be able to come to a successful end or persevere in good works."
This would seem to be in conflict with the P of TULIP in that we must endure and preserve until the end of our life.
Canon 13 "Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man **can be restored only by the grace of baptism,** for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it."
This is pretty obvious but my point is the Reformers seemed to cherry pick what they agreed with.
15:11 owned. nice question kid
What did you mean by “it’s gonna turn into the big panic of 2021 if we are not careful”? What does it have to do with us not being careful? Did God decree this end from the beginning or not? Can we thwart Gods will???
Amen
God wills whatsoever comes to pass. Man makes choices. Not hard to understand.
WIth molinism it actually assuages my concerns about people being damned to hell. It seems to me that any reality that God creates, a person would end up being damned because of his/her essence and propensity to turn against god. It would seem that if God could create any reality where someone would be saved by external circumstances, God would be morally obliged by who he is to save him. With Molinism, it seems to me that in any reality that God could create, that person would still choose to turn from God. God created the reality where the most would be saved, and the minimum amount would be lost. That seems to me to be in line with Gods goodness.
Hey, isn't it true that "middle knowledge" cuts at the very aseity of God, his self-sufficiency? To say that there's a part of our being outside of God sounds very much like elevating ourselves to God's place, doesn't it? Am I right?
Samuel Davidson PREACHH! YOU RIGHT!
EXACTLY, SPOT-ON!
The Aseity of God is utterly compromised by the idea of "Middle Knowledge"; this man-made philosophy makes God dependent upon His creation, and creatures, and the events that occur in time for His knowledge of it/them.
Gnosticism is heresy
@@protestantwarrior1411 Hey, I don't know if Molinism is Gnosticism. Because they don't claim knowledge which they exclusively possess by means of some mystical union with the divine, inaccessible to the uninitiated. They claim God has some kind of knowledge (of so called counterfactuals). Indeed, this is problematic as the nature of man and even the nature of all creation, it pulls God down and elevates creation up. That's the issue. I don't think the issue is Gnostic. Is it?
@@sam_the_davidson It sound so similar to Gnosticism, yes I agree with you!
Geez, no wonder he disables the comments…
Would any of this happen if they actually used presuppositional apologetics rather than evidential?
I'd say yes. In this case White and Molinists share the presupposition that the Bible is God's word and the authoritative source for morals and knowledge about God, so the arguments will revolve around how we are to understand the original language and the context and culture surrounding the text so as to have the better interpretation. One who rejects presuppositionalism will still recognize that shared foundation and argue from it.
I suppose in a different sense it may be that a presuppositionalist is more interested in fully biblical worldview and will be disinclined to add a philosophy like molinism on top, but transcendental arguments aren't exclusive to one side.
No James. You have never demonstrated that others taught your view of election prior to Augustine.
The reason you haven't is because there weren't any church fathers who taught that view prior to Augustine.
This is a very well established truth that even many other Calvinists including John Calvin openly admit.
You need to learn to be humble enough to just admit when you're wrong.
I've never heard you do it even once.
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge Yeah, it is amazing when people elevate the fathers over the Bible. The Fathers wrote on subjects that were being challenged in their day; no one even challenged these doctrines until Pelagius.
All this head banging over competing theologies that JW himself says are not explicitly stated in the New Testament should tell you something. A few points:
1) These discussions are nothing more than a vain attempt to formularize the ideas we have *_about_* God, not the thoughts of God himself.
2) The extent of our knowledge with regard to biblical doctrine is confined to what has been explicitly stated in scripture.
3) If you admire what you esteem to be brilliance and acumen with respect to Calvinist theology, you should know this: God is not impressed with intellectualized discussions of his divine providence, but with obedience to the Gospel.
Well said
I don't see how God knowing what you would do in any situation before creation implies that some level your being exists outside of God's creative will. If anything at that stage, you'd exist exclusively within the creative will of God as a potential reality.
Would anyone say that in Jeremiah 29, where God says he sent Israel into exile by using the Babylonians to do it, is another example of what Dr. White is talking about?
Probably, but the Assyrian example is a bit more obvious. In the span of a few passages, God raises up the Assyrians as an instrument of punishment against Israel and then in turn punishes Assyria for their attack on God's people. It highlights that God being in control and using the wickedness of man for good doesn't excuse that wickedness before God. Babylon eventually falls, but it crosses over several books and isn't as self-contained an example.
4:40 “…the brothers wanted to kill Joseph, God keeps that from happening.”
As a Calvinist don’t you have to say God decreed that the brothers would desire to kill Joseph and then decreed that He wouldn’t allow them to?
Acts 17 states God sets the time and boundaries of nations in a way that gives everyone the greatest opportunity to find God. Nations are made of people so that means God (being outside time) placed souls throughout history in the time and place he did - so that every soul has the best chance at finding Him. Conversely, it could be the case that souls that never had a chance at knowing Jesus (some remote jungle tribe in the Congo for instance) were made up of souls that God knows would have rejected Him under every possible circumstance.
Ultimately, God is all-knowing and all-powerful and he’s the perfect judge of all things and all people. I trust in the Lord.
It is unfortunate that these soft Christians cringe at what happened often in the early church and was exhibited in Paul’s letters - a strong rebuke. Laughing at molinism because of its ridiculousness based on the clear textual refutations like Joseph’s story, Romans 9, etc. doesn’t make this wrong. There are so many proof texts to support a sovereign (actively sovereign for the lurking molinist) God. For example, the Lord in Amos says:
“Does a bird fall into a trap on the ground when there is no bait in it? Does a trap spring up from the earth when it captures nothing at all? If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?”
Amos 3:5-6 NASB
You will need thicker spines than that in the coming days. Here’s the issue - apologists in general sacrifice theology and doctrine to make sure they get a one up in the conversation against an opponent. These apologists do things like make free will necessary over the sovereignty of God or make The Garden story “allegory” to soften the scorn of the militant atheist who doesn’t like a talking snake. What you end up doing by trimming theology and doctrine to fit your apologetics war chest is treading very thin spiritual ice, friends. Especially when that dangerous theology has gained followers and popularity.
Turek makes it sound like Joseph worked his way up climbing the corporate ladder 🤣
What all of this comes down to is that doctor white doesn't believe God is Sovereign enough or powerful enough to truly create a being in his own image with the capacity to freely choose. All of the talk about human beings existing outside of God's creative will if God is capable of knowing something about their potential autonomous choices really boils down to this firm conviction that God is so sovereign that he is powerless to delegate autonomous choice to a creature. Think about that.
Precisely this is one of the reasons I'm not a Calvinist, they ironically claim to have the highest view of God when in reality they have the lowest, they make him out to be a unfair, evil, and unable to create free beings.
That seems like a strawman version of Calvinism. I believe White holds to the London Baptist Confession; chapter 9 explicitly affirms man's free will on Calvinism (as do all the Reformed Confessions), so we would affirm that God creates man with the capacity to freely choose.
JAmes I think you are not thinking it through fully. God can still exert his will on free creatures through Molinism. He didn't turn an evil into good, he willed the good from the beginning of eternity. Let's take a snapshot of Joseph. God knew what his brothers would do, but he also know how pharoah would react to a person like Joseph, he knew about the dreams and knew he would interpret them for joseph, and could have orchestrated the universe to bring about the conditions to fulfill his will. I don't see any contradiction with molinism and with God exerting his will without infringing on our free will. Its actually the only theory that explains free will and gods sovereignty perfectly. I don't see anything that contradicts it and there are many things that support it. There has to be something that explains our free will and gods soveriengty, and using Molinism as a means to structure our understanding around it doesn't strike me as wrong.
Molinism is not a teaching from the apostles, neither is Calvinism. It’s called Gospel.
Would you explain to me What is the Gospel?
IrvingCNC the gospel is the Bible, or more specifically the New Testament.
I think God knew from eternity past that He would create me. I do not believe there was a set time, post-middle knowledge, when God decided to create me.
FACT: Molinists claim that God's exhaustive, infallible foreknowledge is DEPENDENT on the choices creatures make and the events that occur in time.
For that reason alone, it should be rejected as an affront to the Aseity of God.
Questions?
Let me know.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
I'm not sure if Dr. White doesn't understand Molinism or chooses to misrepresent it, but in any case, we need to be careful with language (as we always should be when describing our brothers and sisters in Christ).
At 1:24, Dr. White states "how does God deal with these things in light of the fact that this is what he has to deal with". This is a mischaracterization of Molinism. Molinism doesn't entail that God has to deal with "free autonomous creatures", rather that he chooses to. God could have created a world full of morally insignificant puppets or perhaps he could create a world with totally autonomous creatures and left them to their devices. On Molinism, he did neither. He created a world which is consistent both with his own Will and that of his creatures, which gives foundation to the moral depravity of humans (we ARE responsible for our actions) while at the same time recognizing God's complete sovereignty.
On a side note, I wonder what part of Isaiah 10 Dr. White chose to preach on. "Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless. What will you do on the day of reckoning, when disaster comes from afar? To whom will you run for help? Where will you leave your riches?"
But your reduction of the claims of Molinism also apply in Reformed theology, yet clearly they are two systems making very different claims. You aren't telling the whole story.
And did you bring up Isaiah 10 for any particular reason? Why wouldn't White preach that part? It is right in line with Reformed theology on the law, perhaps especially so given Durbin is a theonomist.
Look, we can go back and forth on this all day, but at the end of the day, predestination is self defeating. Is James White just predestined to think the way he does? Is it the same case for Frank Turek? The fact that we can even contemplate if predestination is true or not is proof that it is self defeating.
Predestination is taught clearly in Ephesians 1 and Romans 8. I don't see how you can get around that when the word "predestination" is literally in the text of those chapters.
@@jacobgarcia4826
If you’re willing to admit that you don’t do anything at all, then okay, you can do it if you wish. But no one is willing to do that. No one is actually willing to admit that free will doesn’t exist.
@@thetannernationyou have a free will but don't have an ability to choose.GOD romans 3:10-23
@@frankiemonato583 yes I do. Your interpretation is wrong
@@thetannernation so even you are totally depraved you still have an ability to.choose.god
Because God foreknew you and every possible counterfactual about you prior to his creative decree, it means you are "outside" of his mind? What in the (possible) world?!
Middle knowledge. These are "truths" that do not have to be true, but are true without God being the primary cause of them. Does that answer your question?
I don’t know about you guys, but I could get down with a Molinist more than I could get down with an Arminian. I feel like Molinists are much closer than Arminians to the truth, but regardless, I do believe anyone who trusts in Jesus for their salvation, knows that their salvation is not their own, etc., I’m happy to call them my brother or sister in Christ. Do I think Calvin is right? Yes, amen. But I don’t need every Christian to be on board with it. I don’t need everyone to have the same soteriology as me. I’m leaning much more the way Piper talks about it in his books. Would I like all Christians to be CalvInists? Yes. But is it the end of the world? No. Only God is going to open people’s eyes to the doctrines of grace. The way I was convinced of it was never someone arguing with me online. It was God opening my eyes as I read scripture.
This comment deserves significantly more likes. But a reasonable comment tends to fall by the wayside compared to the argumentative ones that fail to display the grace and love of Christ.
In Genesis 50, the Hebrew word is not intended, it is literally weave. They were weaved evil and God weaved it into good.
Abraham did not exercise faith (as far as we’re told) until God called him. And God sovereignly drew Israel out of Abraham’s seed. Israel did not choose to be chosen. God chose Israel. The pattern exists throughout Scripture.
This is incorrect. The Hebrew word used in Genesis 50 is never used to mean “weave.” Rather, it is “chashab,” which means “to think, plan, esteem, calculate, invent, make a judgment, imagine, count.” With this in mind, the use of the word Intend is quite accurate with the given context.
I would disagree with WLC on Molonism.
Why?
"If God can know what you're going to do in any given circumstance before God decrees to create you, then you have a level of being that is outside the created will of God."
So are you saying that before God decreed to create man he didn't know what each of us would do? Meaning he didn't have complete knowledge and he learned something new?
Hang on...if God chooses, out of all possible worlds, to create the one in which the most will be saved, and if the people of Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented if those miracles had been done there, why didn't He choose to create a world in which someone did those miracles there? Seems like, on Molinism, this would have been a preferable world...
Wow I thought molinism was idiotic before this now I am truly convinced that those that believe this idiocy are ridiculous!!😂😂😂
So check this out..Can it be , that a God so wondrous and so magnificent, can be in 100% control and still 100% have a free will for man. Thats a miracle. Right? Hard to comprehend but what about this?:
God did elect before the foundation of the world. But, that doesn't mean that he didnt play the whole story in his mind, and then make decisions about the future , waaaayyyy before he created the first speck of dirt!!!
Sure, but once you flesh out all the details, you basically end up at Calvinism. As the Westminster Confession points out in chapter 3.1, God ordains all that comes to pass, and in doing so, he establishes man's free will and the liberty and contingency of second causes.
oracleoftroy Calvinism dictates that faith is given by God, since its a work. But faith isnt a work, its a choice. Grace is the gift thats been given to those who have faith. We are saved by the law of faith, not of the law of works, because faith isnt a work. And if faith isnt a work, then personal choice to have faith doesn’t violate Gods sovereignty. For example, was Judas saved? He performed miracles when Jesus gave the apostles the authority. He produced fruit, but he fell away. So the question is, was that predetermined by God, or did God foreknew that was gonna happen.
Daniel Kepler when we say faith is a work we don’t mean a work of the law or merit you might have that misunderstanding, but to the last question both, but that’s not the right questions. The question should be does God predestine because of what he foreknows? Or does he foreknow because he’s already predestined it
@@danielkepler1023 Personally, I think whether faith is a work is really two questions that get lumped together. Is faith a work? Whose work is it?
Biblically (and if course Calvinism agrees), the answer is that faith is a work, and that it is God's work given to man, not man's work that God looks on with partiality.
John 6: 29 Jesus answered them, This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.
Heb 12: 2 Jesus is said to "author" or "pioneer" or "found" our faith, an action verb indicating work.
And if course, it is part of the package of salvation by grace through faith given by God to his people.
Biblically, faith is a work, but people rush to claiming that it is not a work because they want faith to be to man's credit and know that works salvation is unbiblical.
Reducing faith to a mere choice seems way too reductionistic and not biblical. Faith is itself a verb, you do faith, you live a life of faith. There are choices involved, but faith is much more than the choices.
We are saved through faith because Christ did the work, and our faith rests in Christ as our satisfaction for God's wrath for our sin. We are all lawbreakers, and that guilt condemns us if Christ has not redeemed us.
Judas was never saved. Pharoahs magicians also performed miracles, so that is far from sufficient proof. Jesus explicitly says Judas is the son of perdition, and specifically gives as a reason the fulfillment of prophesy. If course it was predestined and forknown if it was prophesied.
What fruit of the spirit do you claim Judas produce? What love, joy, peace, etc did he show when he aided in Jesus' murder?
Daniel Kepler Abraham did not respond in faith until God called him.
Turek's answer makes God a reactive force, as if He was surprised by the actions of David's brothers. God had to come in behind them to save...not sure what , because the free will of man wasn't known at the time. But how can this be? How can God intend it for good if He didn't intend it from the beginning? Turek makes no sense. Ex post facto can't be intended ex ante. It's after the fact. IF it was God’s intention to clean up the mess, it would be logical to say, "You meant it for evil, but now God will turn it to good. " but it can't be intended after the thing has already occured.
is turek a molonist?
Do you think that someone who really excepts and loves Jesus even tho they believe in Molinism can still go to heaven and if they can what would it take for the believer have to believe in to not be saved
I think it isn't Biblical, but it doesn't contradict essential doctrines of the faith. It is more a speculative addition to the Bible to explain things where Calvinists prefer holding to what the bible says explicitly.
To not be saved, one would have to knowingly deny core doctrine about the nature of God (trinity, incarnation, etc) or salvation (adding works, denying our sinfulness, etc).
@ 9:10 No Molinist of repute has an issue with stating that Middle Knowledge is a "knowledge God has before he wills to create you." Read any oft cited scholar on this to see. So, you're lying.
Hey, I'm just trying to understand Molinism. So, where does this Middle Knowledge of God about us come from? Is it eternal?
Yeah. Who creates all the different world?
Lying as in Molina lying, or as in misinformed statement lying?
Its also important to point out that the apostles didnt really understand Jesus much let alone God to the point to argue his attributes accurately. It also only needs to be 1 verse to support an idea as long as it doesnt contradict any other verse.
God knows everything because everything is past to him
I love frank turek but this is a no for me
I reckon give a preacher who's thinking on his feet, in front a bunch of people, about a difficult subject, a bit more grace. I think James White would do better to support fellow brothers in Christ who are trying to spread the word.
If God made the brothers do it he would be evil also selling someone into slavery is evil no matter what the outcome it.
James… at 12:00 you talk about how Jesus is “worried” about the people’s hard hearted ness… on your view he’s the one who chose to make them hard hearted. He’s not concerned at all. Everything is predestined
Lol, that is funny. Calvinism is hard.
@@huntsman528
I wouldn’t say it’s hard. The doctrine is pretty simple, it’s just extremely fallacious and wrong
@@thetannernation it's hard to defend. You have to change like the whole Bible and redefine everything. It's a bit mind blowing.
@@huntsman528still incorrect
Sorry you cannot admit that God is sovereign
Who do you worship again ??
@@toolegittoquit_001 I worship the God of Israel, who had zero determinism. I worship the God of the early church (up to 1500) who had zero determination. I guess I worship God as He is known for literally thousands of years. You worship God as defined by the gnostics and Manicheans.
This guy would criticize the apostles. He knows all.
Would that be a bad thing per se? I seem to recall several instances in the Bible of an apostle that needed heavy criticism... But the apostles never taught Molinism, so I'm not sure White would need to criticize them over this issue.
I think someone’s jealous.
God is jealous
Off late your line of arguments, is very unchristian to say the least, if you feel your fellow apologist is in a supposed Error, do you have to approach it, this way as if it were a rebuttal, is it to correct error or put a shade on one's credential if they disagree with you on doctrinal issues or might have a different interpretation. You could have equally addressed the issue without necessarily playing his video, and teach your version of molinsm
Public statements should be publicly corrected. This works both ways.
@@oracleoftroy this is about the Christian approach to correcting error; to me that is my concern, you might see it other way but we are all entitled to our opinions that's why I expressed mine. James White himself chastised David Wood on moral/Christian grounds on how he went about a banter with Muslim Apologist. We can as well draw his attention to the same moral/Christian grounds in also correcting errors.
1 Corinthians 9:22
[22]To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.
And this is why I see in house disagreements such as this to be pointless and significantly fail in uncovering the truths behind one's teaching.
Before I even knew there was the coined term called 'monolism' I used my understanding of the Bible and logic to view the sovereignty of God present in all counterfactuals of reality, that is not placing an agenda outside of God's decree, that is impossible because God has already decreed all life to come before the foundations of the earth!!! Hence I believe that means he can very well see and orchestrate His work into every alternative path this life could have played into with every decision that was made even if that life would cease to exist...to say other wise is to say you can understand God enough that he doesn't account for what 'would have'... we just don't know that...
I just think there's bigger fish to fry if you gonna have an internal disagreement... and it's cynical and illogical for him to attack Turek's views as malicious and unbiblical as these views don't directly or indirectly affect salvation in the slightest.
It can be unbiblical (I would say it is) without being a salvation issue (I would say it isn't one). Realizing that God knows counter-factuals isn't uniquely Molinist; that's true on Calvinism as well. The differences come when we introduce middle knowledge.
@@oracleoftroy I'm not sure on Molina's initial thoughts on God's sovereignty, that's why I don't say I'm a molinist.
But there seems to be confusion here, the knowing of counterfactuals is referred to as middle knowledge.
Though I see that the calvinist ascribes the assertion of middle knowledge to indirectly assume that human responsibility is inevitably guiding God's decisions, which makes sense and creates the unbiblical precedent, but we can't discern and especially deny God knowing these things, it could very well have been orchestrated by God but not manifested into reality.
All I'm saying is I rather be on the sideline and say "its possible, for reasons God only knows"... than to sit on James' throne of conjectures and assume God's intent.
@@renchyxii2925 _"But there seems to be confusion here, the knowing of counterfactuals is referred to as middle knowledge."_
Only on Molinism. Classical Christianity has placed God's knowledge of counterfactuals as part of his natural knowledge, and Reformed Christians agree with this.
_"Though I see that the calvinist ascribes the assertion of middle knowledge to indirectly assume that human responsibility is inevitably guiding God's decisions, which makes sense and creates the unbiblical precedent, but we can't discern and especially deny God knowing these things, it could very well have been orchestrated by God but not manifested into reality."_
I'm not sure where you see Reformed Christians doing this. We categorically deny middle knowledge (which involves a lot more than counterfactuals) and I would agree that middle knowledge is an unbiblical precedent. I'm also unclear what is entailed by God orchestrating something but it not manifesting into reality. Are you saying God sometimes fails to accomplish something he sets out to do?
_"All I'm saying is I rather be on the sideline and say "its possible, for reasons God only knows"... than to sit on James' throne of conjectures and assume God's intent."_
I agree with this sentiment. But if God declares his intent, I'd rather side with White and state that intent than remain silent where the Bible speaks. In either case, we need to turn to the Bible to see what it does and doesn't state.
If Jesus is God and thus all-knowing, then the passage referring to miracles done in Sodom and Gomorra might well imply a deep insight into God's foreknowledge.
Uh-oh ... Im; is that in Scriptu.., are You Sure You Read That Right? Lol
Yep. Yep. 'Ol molí is a man made Problem!
Just here to commemorate the prediction about 2021...
This guy completely misrepresents Molinism
You act as if God isn't capable of knowing that much Dr.White
Lol, no. God knows all there is to know on Calvinism, and we don't need to invent middle knowledge to explain it.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
Matthew 7:18
Molonism comes from the Jesuits. The Jesuits are a bad tree. Case closed.
This kid is ridiculous for asking that question in an evangelistic apologetics event. Typical Calvinist, cares more to be right than to do what is right...
Why is it ridiculous? That seems to be a major hole in the theory, and as Christians we ought to be ready to give a defense for the entire Bible, not just the parts that are easy to talk about.
James White talks so far over my head I get very little from his teachings. He also bashes fellow brothers who are spreading the gospel to people all over the world. Is that really what we are supposed to do as fellow believers? And Calvinism makes no sense.
Molinism is a complicated philosophical subject and is tricky to jump into if you aren't familiar with the issues involved. Nothing wrong with that. The Bible gives a principle that "iron sharpens iron." As we wrestle with the Word and argue over what it means, it strengthens and sharpens us. Neither side is bashing each other or being mean, disagreement is not 'bashing'.
@@oracleoftroyThat's a long-winded way to say it's messed up and anti-biblical
@@toolegittoquit_001 I don't disagree with your conclusion regarding molinism, but I do disagree with reaching it in a way that doesn't love Christ enough to obey his commandments to not bear false witness and to present multiple witnesses when making charges against another.
Being complicated does not in and of itself make molinism false.
I heard him mention before that Calvin and Edward’s are two of the greatest minds that God has redeemed. I truly think he need to not leave himself off of this list lol
Meaning jame white.. God causing people to sin, then by that He will put them to hell.
What wrong theology of white.
Nice strawman you got there.
@@oracleoftroy where is the strawman?
@@daddada2984 _"where is the strawman?"_
Here: _"God causing people to sin, then by that He will put them to hell."_
@@oracleoftroy then that is right argument? Please enlighten me. Tnx
@@daddada2984 Westminster Confession chapter 9 gives a good overview of the Reformed position on man's free will. Keeping that in mind helps.
WCF 5.4 states: "The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; *yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God,* who, being most holy and righteous, neither is, nor can be, the author or approver of sin."
Likewise, 3.1 affirms that God ordains all that comes to pass, and so God establishes man's free will and the liberty and contingency of second causes by what he ordains, and so God is not the author of sin.
White is a Reformed Baptist, so I probably should have used the London Baptist confession, but the two confessions are identical or very similar on most points, so there shouldn't be a substantial difference.
Anyway, if you are interested in getting a full picture of Reformed Theology, I'd suggest reading the Westminster Confession as a starting place; it covers all the important bits and isn't overwhelmingly long.
I don’t know about Molinism but I know that Calvinism is wrong.
Which part of Calvinism is wrong?
"How come that system (i.e. Calvinism) was only developed 1500 years after the New Testament?"
rofl, yep!
Ever heard of Augustine of Hippo?
@Josiah Howell yeah, he's a Lutheran in his belief systems. Lutherans are 100% Augustinians. He believed that people were regenerated and saved when they were baptized and he believed that people could walk away from God and apostatize. He believed that infant baptism actually saved babies and that babies who were baptized who died went to hell. He believed that people could repent and get baptized.
Calvinism uses his beliefs, but Calvinism is not even close to Augustinianism. Martin Luther was closer yo the Catholic Chirch than he was to John Calvin.
So, yes, have heard of him and actually read and studied his beliefs.
rofl dude ?
Really
Perhaps it was necessary to write it down because it was so evidentially clear.
Do mature
@toolegittoquit_001 by definition, it can't be evidently clear if no one other than gnostics read it that way for 1500 years.
This poor young people dealing with myh and superstition as if it was reality, instead of receiving instruction in science and technology for a useful life in the 21st century. Shame on these old goats.
These poor young people treating the human mind as the ultimate source of knowledge and treating what we rule to be true as truth. Those poor souls who hate to think that there is something beyond what they can comprehend.
I choose not to subscribe.
Predestined not to learn I guess.
I can rebut this ignoramus (Mr. White) at any given turn. His line of reasoning and the nature of his fallacious thought is a simple exercise of debunking.
Comic Junglist every so often his Dividing Line podcast has a phone day. Call him up and challenge him.
@@willisfletcher6260 he is chicken. likes to comment on a channel that doesn't even belong to him lol.
WasLostButNowAmFound I’m just giving him a chance to refute the ignoramus(his words not mine, I truly respect Dr. White as he’s helped me so much) by calling into his podcast. :-) Thanks for the heads up.
"Tradition can be such a strong filter that you don't hear what you're saying". That is a great point to remember. I've seen that in my own experience, and it can be difficult to overcome.
Took me years to get over my traditions and accept the Doctrines of grace
For those who are confused by all of this ‘middle knowledge’ stuff (proponents of Molinism tend to muddy the water only to make it seem deep), I want to offer this simple explanation:
Molinism (or ‘middle knowledge’) places the knowledge of God somewhere between these two extremes (the fact God is absolutely sovereign and omniscient is something Molinists conveniently ignore):
1) God knows who will be saved (because He chose them before He laid the foundations of the world - Rom 8,9, Eph 1…); and
2) God knows not who will be saved (because that depends entirely on them ‘freely choosing’)
So, Molinism (‘middle knowledge’) is the idea that God will know who will be saved, only IF and WHEN the sinner ‘freely’ chooses to be saved… Ie God’s knowledge of the saved is contingent upon the capricious whim of the sinner, driven by the sinner’s ’free choice’ and circumstance!
So, God will come to know His own, not because He sovereignly ORDAINED the salvation of anyone, but because the sinner FREELY WILLED it to happen at the ‘right time’
Molinism is really a theosophical attempt to somehow preserve the ‘sovereignty of man’ (properly known as ‘Autonomianism’) while paying lip service to the Lordship of God… Molinism is an utterly unBiblical and philosophical bankrupt idea!