What Molinism Can't Intellectually, Honestly Answer
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 май 2020
- We took at look at a seven year old Q&A from William Lane Craig (www.reasonablefaith.org/writi...) on the topic of Molinism.
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudio.com/go/336785
#salvation #worlds #will
I would love to see a debate on this topic with you and WLC
@Rogelio Acevedo When Dr White prepares for a debate, he spends countless hours trying to understand the other side's position. Him entering into a Calvinist v Molinist debate would actually improve his knowledge of Molinism.
@@frogpaste agreed. I think WLC has the same approach to prep so I think it might be a fruitful discussion.
@Rogelio Acevedo I think vested ignorance should never be the reason for why we do not engage with ideas from the 'other' side.
@Rogelio Acevedo I would love for someone who understands Molinism greater than Dr. White to point out his specific deficiencies rather than simply criticize his misunderstanding. Honestly it's not as cut and dry a system as Calvinism. I doubt anyone is able to fully understand it.
@Rogelio Acevedo yes I am aware, Guillaume is a good friend of mine and I have heard him say the same thing. But you made the claim, can you explain your reasons to me? And that you need to be brilliant in philosophy to properly understand Molinism's tells me that the apostles and early Christians had no earthly idea about it. That should guide our interpretation and evaluation of it.
The problem that I seem to always have with Molinism That perhaps it's because of my misunderstanding of it is that it does kind of seem to collapse into determinism and it does seem to have all of this extra baggage that's not needed. But it is definitely philosophical in nature. Perhaps that's why?.
I'm finally, ding, ding, understanding molinism. It's also the reason I distrust it. The more complicated something is past a certain point, thats when I feel theres no difinutive answer. If I believed in the Bible Id think God has deliberately arranged things this way. He wants us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. He certainly doesn't want the flock to become complacent. The other reason is, the paradox of freewill. Even assuming molinism is compatible with it, it feels like double predestination." Now, did I in moly world accept or reject the gospel? It's like your date or destiny has already been decided, which in fact it has.A mere simulation , by comparison, determines our eternity. It should be the other way round, intuitively speaking. But of course that's not logical . It doesn't feel right in either case. As for prayer,God cant retroactively answer them. Not as to salvation. Assuming Calvinists and molinists alike believe one has to recite the affirmation of the faith, either you did, and were saved, or didn't and R dammed . And if you go with the Calvinists, there's no freewill is there?
Good luck with finding a church that even is aware of such questions, let alone thought them through..
Amen
You can find them. In my experience theyre called reformed.
Instead of writing comments to a channel that does not belong to Dr. White, why not tweet him directly and see his replies.
Before ever delving into these questions regarding God's sovereignty, I think it is good first to look into scripture. It would be good to figure out what this existence is all about. Is it about you the insignificant pinch of clay molded by the Potter for His glory? Or is about the eternal God who is blessed forever represented in three persons Father, Spirit, and Son? After reconciling from God's Word that's it's not about me, you, or any other mere human, then the question of God's sovereignty becomes much easier to understand. Because if it's about Him then we can remove our desires, will, emotions, and anxieties from the equation.
You have never heard, you have never known, from of old your ear has not been opened. For I knew that you would surely deal treacherously, and that from before birth you were called a rebel. "For my name's sake I defer my anger; for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another. "Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last.
Isaiah 48:8-12 ESV
bible.com/bible/59/isa.48.8-12.ESV
Let me answer this: According to Molina, There are an infinite number of feasible worlds with the so-called optimal balance. And God knows that for each creaturely essence he conceives of, there is a feasible world where that individual is saved, lost, or doesn’t exist. God chooses the world according to his good pleasure. WLC differs from Molina in that Craig considers the possibility of transworld damnation, where there are some, or perhaps all of the reprobate in the actual world, who would be lost in every feasible world they might exist in despite God supplying sufficient prevenient grace to them. So there are various views in the middle knowledge perspective.
Molinism differs from the Calvinist scheme in that it allows for the possibility of creatures having freedom of the will to choose between a range of options in various circumstances, most importantly, morally significant circumstances. By contrast, placing God’s counterfactual knowledge in free knowledge precludes this kind of freedom which Molinists advocate is a Biblically undeniable. This placed the onus of evil on human beings and it retains God’s universal salvific will, which is arguably a Biblical teaching.
I think James White should do a bit more thinking on this subject and apply the principle of charity to his critique.
There is no such thing as "universal salvific will." There are lots of people in the bible that God did not want to save
Pharaoh: _I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go._ Ex 4.21. And before you say "Pharaoh hardened his own heart" there is much more evidence that God desired the hardening more than Pharaoh did. Pharaoh wanted to let the Israelites go at more than one point throughout the plagues before God hardened his heart again.
The pagan nations of Canaan: Deut 2.30; Josh 11.20
The sons of Eli: _But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for the Lord desired to put them to death._ 1 Sam 2.25
Unbelieving Jews of Jesus' ministry: _To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted._ Matthew 13.11 _I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight._ Matthew 11.25,26.
False teachers: _for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed._ 1 Peter 2.8
All the verses that speak of God's love include believers only, not the entire world. John 3.16 (whosoever believes will have eternal life; cf. John 1.13 -- those born again are born of God's will not their own and John 1.29 "who takes away the sin of the world" not potentially but actually. "The world" = only believers; 1 Tim 2.4 (all men with and without authority, not all men); 1 John 2.2 "us" = eyewitnesses and "the whole world" = Jew and Gentile believers rather than just Jews.
If God wanted to save the whole world, the whole world would be saved. Who can resist his will? Rom 9.19. _No purpose of Yours can be thwarted._ Job 42.2
hondobondo Molina’s entire task was to take all the verses you mentioned as well as the so-called “Arminian” verses and to take them all at face value rather than to attempt to explain them away and subordinate one set of verses to another. What Molina would say youre off on is your conclusions. I get your reasoning. “If God wanted all to be saved, all would be saved,” but that’s mere speculation at best and at worst it doesn’t take all of scripture into account. I could give countless examples of God’s will expressing that unbelievers come to him and expressing that they could have even if they didn’t.
But let me just focus on one and ask you a very simple and direct question: does God pleasure in the death of the wicked? As you know, I’m appealing to Ezekiel. I’ve listened to James White’s lecture on it and frankly I was dumbfounded how he dismissed the face value meaning of that verse and assumed it must not be a true statement, and he bases this on a verses from completely different parts of the Bible. When God says he doesn’t pleasure in the death of the wicked, do you affirm this or not?
@@davidr1620 I don't know how to answer the question of God taking pleasure in the death of the wicked. Despite the one verse in Ezekiel, there are several verses in Psalms, Proverb and Isaac where God laughs at wicked people before destroying them. (Ps 2, Prov3, Is 37, etc). So I take Ezekiel to mean that God is not sadistic.
But there are several questions that prevent me from seeing Molinism as viable: God and God alone determines which humans He will create. Why bother creating those who will not believe? Or worse, why preach to those whom He knows will not believe (Jn 6:64)? All that does is intensify their damnation (Matt 11:20-25). It doesn't increase their odds of salvation.
Molinism keeps God as a cosmic butler. Smarter than the Arminian God, but butler nonetheless.
Sorry, but I can't see how that works.
@@timffoster If God doesn't pleasure in the death of the wicked, just as scripture says, wouldn't that be pretty significant and wouldn't it fly in the face of the claims of supralapsarianism? Frankly, I can't ignore that and I don't see how Biblically faithful believers seem to brush it off. There are many, many more instances, as you know, where God pleads with sinners to repent.
Asking questions such as "but then why would God X or why wouldn't God X" should be secondary to what scripture says. But Molina provides pretty detailed answers to the "why bother creating" question. He makes the point that it may not be the case that had God created, say, only the elect in this actual world, they all would freely repent. Remember, that would be a different world with wildly different circumstances. The point is, we aren't in a place to know what God's reason is, but it's perfectly plausible that a reason such as this could be why.
As for why preach to those whom he knows will not believe; the point the Molinist makes is that this isn't merely theoretical. We have scripture which shows God himself petitioning people whom he knows will not believe. So the argument is moot. But a philosophical reason, Molina would say, is because God truly does love these people and it's a genuine call to them. Why does God constantly reveal himself to Israel knowing they would reject them? Because he loves them. Although Molinism affirms that God is omniscient and all powerful, the greatest conceivable being, and infinitely wise, he's still a genuinely loving God.
I'm not sure what cosmic butler means and I'm not sure how that's an argument.
David R I think that for the most part, those who reject Molinism don’t seem to really understand what it is and what it accurately teaches, James White included. Plus, if one’s mind is already closed and so shielded by other systems like Calvinism (or even Arminianism), it would really be very difficult to understand what Molinism is. This is why Dr. White asks the questions he’s asking, which seem to be more rhetorical for him than anything else.
The problem with Molinism is the similar problem with Utilitarianism, as they are both consequentialist theories.
Please try to have a skype/zoom debate with WLC
This Friday!!!!!!!
@@A1vin505 ooh snap!!!
@@A1vin505 don’t play with my emotions
This needs to be talked about between you two.
I don’t think Molinism is trying to answer “Why God chooses.” I think we fail to understand that God chooses and no one is even capable of pointing a finger and asking him why. It’s almost a contrast that the cross was salvation for many but it was also for you personally. It’s like the contrast between salvation being for all or for me individually. No one has the right to point at God and ask “Why did you do it this way?” I know it hard for our hearts to bind to that agreeingly, but its true. If God is the creator of all, how can i question it?
Better yet, if any given world has true free will, one of us is bound to be un-pleased with God at some point. It goes hand in hand with God being the sustainer of my life. If he doesn’t sustain it or cant, then I’m doomed.
And also you would have to answer the question, “Why did God created Adam and Eve first rather than you or your wife first?” Or rather “Why did God create at all?” It leaves us with no other answer than “He simply wanted to.” And who can argue that? No one can, but some will. Because thats our fallen-ness :)
Its not simply a matter of wondering why God picks and chooses his decisions without our understanding. Its a matter of having two self-conflicting concepts of his nature which cannot co-exist based on what he has shown us what his nature is like in scripture. On the one hand, the Bible tells us he is loving. Being manifested as a man, Jesus spent time with tax collectors and sinners. He forgave adulterers, healed people, and died for our sins so that we wouldnt have to. This aspect of his nature is not debatable. Every Christian must accept it because scripture cannot be interpreted any other way.
But then you have groups of people that claim their interpretation of scripture pertaining to Gods power indiciates that God pre-planned potentially billions of people to be tortured for trillions and trillions of years, without end, before they even existed and were capable of making a choice. Its not the same as asking why me and my wife werent the original humans. Its the same as asking how someone worse than hitler could be considered a loving individual! I think its a question the people making the claim must answer. Its not a question that God needs to answer, because he isn't the one making that claim. Humans are.
If we assume God got to choose between a near-infinite amount of worlds, is it not plausible that in one of them nearly all of humanity got to be saved?
If there were 100 people in the world yes, but when Jesus came there were 300 million people in the world all with different religions and faiths. We haven't even been able to reach people in the Americas until the 1500s. Currently about a third of the world are nominally Christians, i think that's pretty good since all the odds were against the gospel.
I was just thinking about this as I'm listening. It's not that God can't save them.... They are choosing to reject God. Could God just override their free will sure he could. The bigger question is will he override their Free Will not if he could override their free will. I'm not a Molinist by any means, although I do think God has this middle knowledge because I think God has all knowledge.
At least in Molinism, even if God chooses one particular world, the accountability of sins in that world still fall on the shoulders of men.
But in Calvinism, it falls on the shoulder of God.
Can't wait to see you debating William Lane Craig.
This Friday!
"and the most important thing is, it ain't Biblical"
Just once I'd like to see White argue anything at all without begging the question.
Answering as I'm listening. It only raises more questions for us because we are limited finite creatures. Through molinism, God achieved the maximum number of people he wishes to save, ultimately getting his way, without infringing on free will. Also under molinism, God isn't the creator of evil
i would love to see where in the bible God says "I want the most people possible to be saved"
Would you not see a passage like this saying that exact thing? 1 Timothy 2:3b-4 ...God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Cause I would.
@@codythomas5059Calvinists understand contextually, that the “all” isn’t referring to “all people for all time”, that it’s “all categories of men”.
@@jermoosekek1101 Sorry, I still don't see it. Even granting that, "All" still implies, scratch that, "All" explicitly demands the concept of the "most people possible."
Also, that's a bit of hermeneutical gymnastics, denying the simple understanding of a passage.
Molinism = DIY Calvinism
I don't get why people get so hung up on hypotheticals. God only made 1 creation and has decided who he will save and who he won't. Even if there were hypothetical worlds where all are saved, He, the Creator of the Universe decided not to make it. He decides what is good, not us.
Yes!
I just saw this clip and was thinking the same thing. I'm not sure of the benefit of these hypothetical worlds. It reminds me of someone trying to write a Sci-Fi novel. It reminds me of (2) verses. The first, "Stay away from foolish, useless talk, because that will lead people further away from God" (2 Timothy 2:16); and "But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ" (2 Cor 11:3).
🙌🙌 Amen to that. But we do love hypothesis 🤭🤭🤭 makes our brain tick better.
I believe that God could only make "1" possible creation that has unlimited freedom for salvation and any other type of creation would be unnecessarily limiting. This unlimited salvation choice creation is the world we live in. Out of all the possible worlds God could make, he thought up the only "1" world, thereby discarding the untold trillions (or more) of possible worlds that don't work. A world where God desires all people to be saved and allows sufficiently free will to choose but knows due to evil, not all people will make the choice to seek him. Evil should not be defined strictly as humanly bad things but rather more of choices and actions that God himself would not/could not choose due to his holiness. Anything outside the will of God for man is evil. Evil is like darkness, it's the absence of light. God allows the expression of evil but is not dependent on it to accomplish his purposes. Evil does serve a unique role in that it automatically separates the sheep from the goats and condemns itself and its bearer as being outside the will of God in view of future judgment. I see God as a personality similar to human personalities in that, he has a will and a purpose and can actively work through civilizations to bring his purposes into being without violating the "relative" free will of his created beings. No being has absolute free will, not even angels. Everyone is affected by the world they find themselves in and by the beings they come into contact with. Only God can exercise absolute unaffected unfettered free will, but he seems to allow himself, at times, to "relative" free will. He can still move people to action, similar to humans moving other humans to action, without removing their exercise of freewill, nor tainting the cause of their judgment.
Any logical mistakes above are entirely my own but this is what I've gleaned by and through scripture and the witness of the Holy Spirit over 44 years, without any significant church teaching. I'd say I'm a eclectic mix of Arminism and Molinism. I'm open to intelligent and honest rebuttal.
bold call, poisoning the well in the video title itself.
After watching this video, I truly believe the concept of Molinism escapes Dr. White.
How so? Isn't he reading WLC answer to the question?
Yea he's just locked into his own framework and isn't open and does not comprehend molinism correctly.
The light bright comment makes me agree with you. He doesn't understand how God could possibly be wise and powerful enough to use people's free choices to accomplish His good will. God chooses to allow people free choices and works those choices together for good for those who love Him. He does this for His own glory and noone can annul His choice.
For the LORD of hosts has purposed,
And who will annul it?
His hand is stretched out,
And who will turn it back?” - Isaiah 14:27 NKJV
Maybe when 'God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.' ;) He determined that people would have the freedom to choose or reject Him and ordained that people would make meaningful choices that would effect where they spend their eternity. He knows all things.... In any possible world. He predestined the time and boundaries that people would be born so that they might grope for Him and find Him. He is able to accomplish His perfect plan while allowing the people He created in His image to actually make meaningful choices and participate in actuating His plan.
This ability shows the vast intellect and power of God and I'm personally awed that He is able to do this.
I think he ultimately doesn't understand that his view is also a system outside of the bible that he imposes in his interpretation. There is no, "Thus saith the Lord: Calvinism is right and Molinism wrong." Or anything that plain or clear. You have to impose the framework on Eph 1 in order to pull out the rabbit of any of these systems.
I actually consider myself right now that there is not enough evidence to believe that god exist but I´m open to the idea if the conditions are set but I respect so much taking your time to answer this difficult questions that are present in the many church the amount of pastor that aren´t able to answer this questions is considerable and makes a reasonable believe impossible
3:52 Exactly my thoughts. If Once saved always saved from before the foundation of the Earth is true, isn't UNSAVED from before the foundation of the Earth is utter hopelessness.
Craig is mixed up and deluded. That's what happens when your Christianity is informed by secular philosophy
I've found that when a person preaches against an idea but uses little to no scriptural evidence. They tend to depend on their own opinions rather than actual facts and evidence. As it is so far they tend to argue with emotionally provoking statements to distract and fail to discredit an idea.
Molinists, in my experience, outnumber every other group in Jesus quotes by about 10 to 1, so I don’t know what you’re getting at
@@whatsinaname691 My point is argue from scripture. Not opinions, or emotions.
@@komatarikinala66 so what theology is not using scripture?
these arguments seem pretty circular. could molinism and calvinism not be merged that God chose the way He wanted things to play out, and created the universe in a way that His elect would be saved by their own volition?
No, because that would still just be Molinism where salvation is depending on mans choice over Gods choice. Sure, God would be the one actuating to universe in which the person chose, but It would still imply that man played a role in his salvation by his choice thus undermining the Calvinist perspective which holds that Salvation is entirely a Mongistic act whereby God is the only one who plays a role in saving faith.
@@pinkdiscomosh2766 valid point
@@daltondupre8837 back when I was a determined non Calvinist, Molinism was my last line of defense in trying to reconcile Gods sovereignty and mans free will. It ended up not working out because, as White explains, you have just as many issues to answer for as a Molinist as you would as a Calvinist. I also found it difficult reconciling the idea that God somehow only was able to actuate a universe wherein the majority of humanity would still not be saved. I couldn’t see how that was possible if God would have, presumably, an infinite number of possible futures to actuate. The whole idea just seemed to limit God so much that God making any claim to save anyone just seemed empty. This is why I ultimately became a Calvinist. I agree with White that God is mighty to save and will save all that he has determined to save and Jesus will raise them up on the last day and that word won’t fail in the slightest.
@@pinkdiscomosh2766 amen. Thank you for your input, I'm might clarify that I'm staunchly calvinist. It was simply a question that I've wondered for a while
@@pinkdiscomosh2766 Interesting, seeing your experience and former position... I'm tempted to ask for your pointers. If I may... how'd you reconcile Calvinism with the following verses?
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were unwilling!"
"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will *draw all men unto myself* "
"Now there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even *denying the Master who bought them* - bringing swift destruction on themselves."
"He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world"
"everyone who calls" (Rom. 10:13), to "him who is thirsty" (Rev. 21:6), to "all you who are weary and burdened" (Matt. 11:28)
God decided that people in HIS IMAGE and HIS LIKENESS (consequential choice) were the ultimate expression of (very...Gen 1:31) good in a created world. The world He created IN LOVE must, therefore, maximize the greatest possible number of those people while staying within that limitation. The idea that some might be lost and would otherwise be saved in another hypothetical world is impossible to consider if God is omniscient and still Love. White doesn't work within the immutable attributes of God that are clearly known from the Bible. He reasons from a flawed human limitation viewpoint.
He's assuming God created a world that has since been running in autopilot, and that God is not actively working on it in this very second, that's where he goes wrong.
And you’re an open theist
It will seem to be quite difficult for Dr. White to understand what the answers to the questions he asks because it seems that he does not accurately understand what Molinism is. He seems to have picked some speeches and interviews of William Lane Craig and interpreted Molinism from those. But he seems to miss some basic points about it. He is so shielded by the Calvinistic system that he finds it hard to understand beyond it, which is evident from his questions.
Molinism is really just paganism.
WLC is a world class pholospher and his thinking comes from that notion that God is perfect and flawless and has to account with all types of angles even the multiverse notion that explains Gods sovereignty and mankind's free will. "Let those who have ears hear"
I do not pitch a tent at any of these camps......however a common issue I see is that it may be that we forget that "it's not all about you". I believe it is feasible that Yahuah in His infinite knowledge COULD see multiple timelines or possibilities and form what we might understand as an algorithm to be used in circumstances to thwart His ULTIMATE will. And IF this is the case one might see that the ever expanding algorithm based culture may possibly be a system which is rapidly attempting to reproduce or counterfeit the behavior of the One True Creator.
It is sad that, many of my questions are answered through atheists channels.
By watching them I know what to search in order to view the Biblical perspective.
Wish that Churches has this kind of teachings and not only of the 2hrs on the sundays...
As a fresh 2 yrs born again Christian I do have questions...many of them...
4yrs in the faith and I'd say God will guide you, what I did though was to pick the soteriology that sounded closest to the bible and found a church like that, in my case a reformed church with expository preaching, be not discouraged peace and grace to you.
Wow 3 months and no one has jumped on this comment. 😳
What's a question you have? I'll help of I can 😀
Reasonable faith ministries book by William Laine Craig (spelling?) Entitles The Only Wise God . Free thinking ministries book by Tim Stratton. Dr. Leighton Flowers wrote a book covering romans 9 i believe. Kenneth Keathley (spelling) book Salvation and Sovereignty. All people who have devoted much time into these areas. [[On other side... Dr. R.C. Sproul book chosen by God . Dr. James White book Potters Promise. John Calvins book institutes on Christian religion can look for appropriate chapter. John Edwards book Freedom of the Will. Martin Luthers book Bondage of the Will]] All Christians. You just need to know where to look my sister.
Some open theists might think that way but I believe most open theist believe that God knows all possible options or all possible outcomes. I think that's the way they would word it.
You should debate him, because I've just heard you misrepresent a few things that I've heard him repeat often.
Molinism is humanism's last try on soteriology. After pelaganism and arminianism have failed.
I disagree
Funny finding you here! I disagree with him as well :)
It seems like you are dismissing the power of God and his infinite nature. We are man. We cannot know everything. Molinism is probably the closest we will get but we cannot know everything which is why we preach the gospel and Christ crucified. The problem is simply, as man we think too much. Knowledge puffeth up. God hardened hearts and people made choices. We just have to accept both however it is God does things.
Matthew 22:1-15
Looking at verse 8, why did God invite people to heaven and then they are able to reject Him? Why does God get mad in verse 7 if He’s only dealing with Himself? If God inspires all actions, does this mean books like the Quran are also inspired words of God?
Wow that’s bad
@@dustinnyblom7835 I agree, that would be bad. Can you explain why you think so?
@@adamcolejones I meant your response. It was filled with category errors and nonsequetors, and isn’t even accurate of Calvinism at all
@@dustinnyblom7835 Calvinism is a Spectrum, you can't find 2 calvinists that believe the exact same things on every issue related to theology, or hobbies, or anything. Everyone is different. This idea that God determines our choice of faith leaves a lot of open doors for bad theology.
The Calvinist James White, believes that when a woman gets raped in an alley, that it was God's desired will to happen that way. Other Calvinist's like John Piper believe that God ordained his own sin and disobedience in his famous "I dropped the pen speech" making God responsible for sin.
Calvinism is destructive to the faith. It leaves more questions, concerns, and contradictions than it should.
@@adamcolejones okay, you can make that rape purposeless and meaningless, I can’t stop you
What are these "worlds"???
Sounds like some folks are detached from reality.
What do staunch calvinists think about god being sovereign and man not being so. Thus, because man is not sovereign, he lives as if he has free will and bears responsibility as if he has free will. Does Gods sovereignty even contradict mans free will?
Calvinists are compatiblusts, so no, God and man's will doesn't contradict. Man can mean some action for evil all the while God means them to do that same action for good.
The Westminster Confession gives a good overview of the position. Chapter 9 covers man's free will and chapters 3 and 5 speaks about how it interacts with God's decree and providence, respectively.
With the assumption God is trying to save the most possible people?
That is an assumption asserted by White.
That's actually easy... there would be presumably an infinite number of "worlds", hence every possible conditional combination (the conditional is important because we still need free will as a factor or the game is rigged - sorry Calvin), hence God chose a world that included saving everyone who could be saved. The corollary to that conclusion is that, yes, God has knowledge of all those other possibilities, hence "middle knowledge" - all of the True and False conditional subjunctives.. Short answer, if someone isn't saved in this world, they were not savable in any world. You can call the outcome irresistible grace if you like, but it's a result of an optimal choice based on the outcomes of all possible free will choices. I don't see the issue.
Sad
Objection regarding plausible worlds and whether or not someone you know might be saved or not…How is that not a choice on God’s part? It is a choice. God has chosen to structure our world such that His purposes are accomplished while honoring the Free Will of human beings. His creation any world does not determine our choices, foreknowledge is not causal. He merely knows each of us so well that He already knows what we would choose in any given circumstance.
Where does this idea come from? It comes from a logical, reasoned examination of God’s character and attributes, namely his Goodness, His Omniscience, His Omnipotence, His Timelessness, and also from His revealed Word. A good God would not force himself on unwilling creatures, therefore it is logically impossible for God to create a world in which we do not have free will. So He instead demonstrates his omniscience and omnipotence by demonstrating himself to be the ultimate in regards to balancing the complexity of a world filled with free persons, yet using their free choices to accomplish His purposes, while also saving anyone who would freely accept salvation.
People who may not be saved in any possible world…I agree with Craig in that. I know people that seem to be people that under no circumstances would freely choose salvation. So yes, there are people who God cannot save, but only because He refuses to violate their Free Will. That is the greater moral choice. There’s a great scene in The Chosen where Jesus says to the people of his hometown “If you cannot see that you need the year of the Lord’s favor then I cannot save you.” That’s a beautiful artistic illustration of the idea.
Does he have this massive pile of litebright things to create these worlds from? Yeah basically. He’s the God of the Universe. He is omnipotent and capable of creating any logically possible world.
Regarding how WLC answered that question about feasible worlds etc etc, WLC lays out the broad, general possibilities under the system of thought. My answer would be that I believe in a God powerful and wise enough to create a world where everyone who wants to be saved can be.
Prayer on Molinism…you don’t understand it because you’re looking at this issue from the human perspective being bound by time rather than from the timeless God’s perspective. Also, why can’t a Molinist believe that the purpose of prayer is to have communion and fellowship with God, and to allow ourselves to come more in line with his will. Now I think. now, it also seems that prayer is more than just our way of changing ourselves to be in line with God, it also seems to be a way for us to communicate, and actually have God answer our prayers. I see no reason why, under the idea of middle knowledge a Molinist could not have this perspective. It seems that you’re being intellectually dishonest yourself by cleaning that.
Looking down the corridors of time. It’s certainly an interesting phrase, but it demonstrates that you don’t actually understand the idea of timelessness. A timeless being wouldn’t pier down the Corredor‘s of time, but would merely experience all points in time at once. Everything, all of time would simply be “Now”. From that perspective it becomes very easy to see how God could make these determinations, especially when you add in the reality that God can know and see all possible permutations of reality. (Side note: I want to almost liken it to certain dreams that I’ve had. Dreams where I can see in 360° all at the same time. It’s a really interesting experience being able to see everything all at once. Some dreams I have had the experience of being able to see through multiple people’s eyes all at the same time, or sometimes I can see through my own eyes, but also see from a third person overhead view at the same time.)
I look forward to your response
This is why I listen to Dr. Craig. He typically doesn’t assume to have all of the answers like a lot of these other guys. He’s much better at being objective than most people I hear who try to refute his arguments/explanation. I trust that he has dealt with much of this criticism already. And probably in a much more intellectually honest way.
I avoid Dr. Craig because hes a philosopher over anything else. Hes not a theologian in any stretch of the imagination. Which is why most of what he says just falls apart when you hold it up against the light of scripture. Mind you hes a man who said yeah he could be wrong about God. Avoid men like him who just tickle your ears with their musings.
Did you not listen at all to what was being said? Lol I listen to Craig but I see things he is wrong on. You should also
@@danielomitted1867 He most definitely is a theologian. And an amazing one at that. What are some examples of the things you think fall apart?
@@SquishyyyBeaner No I watched it. It’s been several weeks at this point though. What are some things you know he’s wrong about?
@@nickmartinez3552 "God has to deal with the cards hes been dealt" and hes also said he could be wrong about God. Middle knowledge is not something you get out of the bible. Its a philosophical conclusion. He is a philosopher not a theologian.
So you're saying that in the Calvinist view of God that God isn't omniscient. Lol.
Think WLC says God chooses the world with the most amount of Good. It is not based on person A , B or C , but based on the greatest good . The greatest amount of people being saved. We can thrust God that this world we live is where God makes the greatest harvest of souls for his glory. Where most people are saved freely. Glory to God!
This implies two things, which seem rather dangerous assumptions.
1.) God is incapable of bringing some people to salvation through their free will without sabotaging his ability to save others (despite this never appearing in scripture - and scripture also demonstrating God's capability to save a Christian murdering Jesus-hating pharisee named Saul simply by appearing to him)
2.) The great sacrifice to save us from our sins wasnt God being incarnated as Christ to take our place for our sins - but also to designate a certain number of people to take our place in hell before time began, without any choice of their own, so that the largest amount of souls would be saved in heaven "for the greatest good".
I think it implies severe limitations on God, stating he is incapable of bringing certain people to salvation, and who bargains with death rather than conquers it. Its not so different than open theism given that the theory requires God to be limited in order to work. These theories just disagree on what those limitations are.
I love ya White but it's my FREE WILL that let's me
We all put SOMETHING on a pedestal...
Wow
Molinism ultimately shares the same fatalistic decretal premise as Calvinism. It's another failed attempt like Compatibilism to reconcile the God of the Bible with His depiction in Classical Theism. The two are irreconcilable.
Im a Molinist except for the world creation part. There is one world. He is outside the dimension of time. He can intervene into any moment of time at any time to adjust the results of our free will. He is constantly pursuing each of us, but knows that, like Adam, he cant allow free will AND forcefully elect everyone. I can guide my son, but I cant force him to do everything or his spirit will be crushed, he will have no personal identity.
Good point. However, the best of all posible worlds, agregette world, the most people saved , the souls that reject jesus but on agregette pass their freewill test, get the wild card. There is no grading on a curve.
"Why am I saved and not my friend who I love?"
This problem is WORSE on Calvinism because on Calvinism it is God who damned your beloved friend. At least on Molinism, you could say people freely choose to be saved or not.
That your friend is not saved in any feasible (actualizable) world is just a HYPOTHESIS regarding God's considerations in creating the world. It doesn't have to be true. Molinism is neutral to this view. Molinism just holds that God KNOWS what people would freely do.
God could have all kinds of purposes in his grand plan for the world but the point is, on Molinism people send themselves to hell. On Calvinism, God sends people to hell.
Not really. he damned himself having inherited Adams sin.
@@gumercindotello524 How does one inherit Adam’s sin?
@SedTV
That argument at the beginning you posted is just dependent upon your feelings. Molinism is not biblical and is based upon philosophy as how Molina made it. Molinism limits God and what He can do and makes God, His decrees, and His will DEPENDENT upon man and their "free will"--even when the Bible teaches man's nature is slaves to corruption and sin(man's will is dependent upon his natural--thats why we need regeneration). Also, if man's will isn't in the state of depravity, then regeneration(taught throughout scripture) is useless because our will is apparently "free". I would love to hear your response and also love for some biblical argumentation for molinism. 🫶🏼👍🏼
Not at all. On calvinism, we damn ourselves by willfully sinning against God. That's why we need a savior. And that's where predestination comes in: out of a people already condemned for their sins, God chooses to show undeserved mercy on some and in time brings salvation to them. The rest receive the justice they deserve for their sin.
Most other systems have the problem that they posit it is unjust for the judge to go against the will of the guilty criminal and what the judge ought to do is let the convicted run the trial.
@@oracleoftroy But that’s my point. “God chooses to show undeserved mercy on some.” This choice to save only some directly damns the rest to hell. So on Calvinism what is the difference between me and my friend such that God saved me but not him? The difference is only God’s will. God willed that I be saved and God willed that my friend not be saved and so be damned to hell.
How can you honestly say that prayer is pointless in Molinism, when you believe that God decided everything ahead of time for us, which means even our prayers are not ours but that we don't actually do it?
God decreed the ends as well as the means to those ends. That's the confusion that many non-Calvinistic folks will have about the Calvinistic soteriological position. I'm not blaming you. It's very common. However, it is indeed a very common misunderstanding of Calvinistic soteriology.
Alright.. you don't understand molinism
That's what they all say Haha
@Exposed Podcast My brother i am a calvinist to the core and i do fully accept and respect your beliefs. This is a non- essential disagreement that for sure wouldnt place you as a heritic
@Exposed Podcast when i listen to WLC explain it, My problem with Molinism is that it keeps God captive to the infinite worlds: He seems to not be able to do other than that which is presented to Him. (Eg, if God doesn't want people in hell, why can't He simply not make those humans? Why is that not an option for Him? Are we really to believe that out of 8B humans in human history, we couldn't find a few million here and there who didn't really need to be created?)
The problem with theology is: theologians that say they have it right. Stick to the mission: proclaim the gospel to all nations, and those that are dead in trespasses and sins whom God regenerates will be saved.
Well that was boring 😴😴😴
in a Calvinist bible this is what Matthew 28 says
Jesus came and told his disciples, “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Therefore, go and make Calvinist of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach these new Calvinist to argue about everything without obeying all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you unless i created you for destruction, even to the end of the age.”
Matthew 28:18-20
Go away with that nonsense.
@Alan Crane LOL no not really 😂.
the fact that the movement is named after someone other than Jesus, and those people refer to them selves as "Calvinist" (a disciple of Calvin) proves they are not disciples of Christ Jesus. because Jesus said you cant follow 2 masters.
@Alan Crane no o actually just believe the bible and what Jesus said. Hince my name Disciple of Jesus. Jesus never said to make Christians by getting them to repeat a prayer and go to a building and pay a tithe. Jesus said to make disciples of himself. and the best modern word we have is an apprentice Jesus is the master and we are His disciples. the word Christian only comes 3 times in thw bible and its literally as an insult. but the word has been so water down by all the ism's
@Alan Crane there os not a single contradiction in Gods word. start with that as one of your presuppositions when approaching gods word
@Alan Crane no i believe what the bible says. God is our Father He is Spirit He is Jesus our Savior. so those 3 aspects to God does not take away from the fact that He is the one and only.
To summarize God is Father, Son, Holy Spirit and He is One. because thays what the Bible says i dont have to draw a hard line and use a manmade word like Trinitarian to define Him. i can let His word define his word and not put Him into a box or label not found in Scripture. its really simple.
Because it isn't compatible with your man made doctrine
Molinism fails for the exact same reason Calvinism fails; its hard determinism; in both belief systems the Molinist God and the Calvinist God are imagining and deterministically creating the world on a millisecond by millisecond basis.
K.
It's Calvinism without the Total Depravity.
Arminianism, my dear brother is the one that fails that test. For if God 'knew' before hand that said individual would reject the gospel, yet made him anyways. He would in turn have created a being destined for hell. Calvinism is the only system of belief that simply bows to the sovereign decree of God, He is God and who are we to question His handiwork?
@@daltondupre8837 Agreed.
Prayers are evidence that God see that whats in your heart.. it moves God's love to us & the people's love to God.
Stay away from calvinism.
Read Jeremiah 17:9
I don't see why there's any issue here with molinism..
God had a plan which He worked out before it started. In that plan some won't be saved and others will but being saved is up to the free will a person has to turn to God or not. So repentance is in the will of the person God created. Some God foreknows won't be saved but some he foreknows will be (the elect) - but God doesn't doom any particular person because each person chooses. It's just like did God force Adam and Eve to sin - no, they had a choice and the capacity to chose not to, but God knew they would.
All this talk about "worlds with maximum number saved" doesn't take away from the idea that the person chose themselves.
Some are made vessels for destruction because of who they are when God made them, but it doesn't mean God forced their hand, they are just this sort of person that in no circumstance they would come to Him out of their own innate stubbornness and pride that they could chose to overcome but don't (which may explain why God hated Esau in the womb).
Names are blotted out from the Lamb's book of life - suggesting they were originally present and viable to be saved.
Who conceived of those persons before God created them? If God, then was there an infinite number of possible persons of which to conceive? If they were not at first conceptions, then what is there for God to consider?
Dr. White, you have some terrible assumptions. On Molinism, there is no debate or discussion within God about what "world" is truly the best because God already knows what world allows for the most people to be saved. Additionally, God knows how each person would respond to the gospel in each and every time and place in which they could be born, live, and die and so God organized the world that those who would respond to the gospel would all be born in a time and location in which they could hear and receive the gospel. We see evidence of this in Act 17: 26-27 "And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him."
God did not compare and contrast possible worlds, He perfectly crafted a world in which every possible person who could be saved by hearing the gospel would be saved, and all those who would in all circumstances reject the gospel are organized in such a way as to lead as many as would accept the Gospel to faith. No need for forced coercion making God the author of sin and death as Calvinism does and no destruction of the free will that is fundamental to the concepts of love and faith. Perfect biblical marriage of foreknowledge and God's actions.
You really showed that strawman, Jimbo
Animalism is biblical, as it answers everything Calvinism cannot, and it answers everything Arminianism cannot.