What helps me is to remember that slaves have no will of their own. Certainly not slaves that worship their chains. The last thing we should want is for God to not intervene or toy with our free will. For without God overcoming what we want we would gladly march into hell.
I believe (because scripture teaches it) that God determined that there be sin yet without himself sinning. He did so to show sinners who love their sin how good and gracious and holy he is in comparison to sin. Greatest of all was his plan from before time began to die for sinners covered in their sin under his own wrath against sin. If you can’t stomach this, it is likely you have a disproportionate view of self and God in terms of holiness and utter depravity.
@@Descriptor_ Poisoning the well is a childish thing to do and I resent your attempt at it. Leave it open to yourself that perhaps it can't be stomached because it's preposterous. God determining that there would be sin still leaves the question unanswered as to who is responsible for it. God can determine that free will creatures can have the ability to sin, and create them knowing what they will do, yet not forcing them in either direction. Thereby leaving the blame solely on the agent that acts, namely Adam and Eve, and not God. However, the rejection of free will leaves only God as the author of sin. He puppeteers Satan to "tempt" Eve (a bit redundant given the circumstances in this scenario) who he then puppeteers to fall to said temptation. Neither Eve nor Satan had any say in this, mind you, they are merely along for the ride. The results of this puppeteering are unthinkable. The march into hell by countless sorry souls is caused by only God, being that he is the only agent in existence with any meaningful will. He alone courses their wills, thoughts, actions and destiny. If a father caused his son to steal and then punished him for stealing, we'd call that child abuse and prosecute the father. If a good earthly father would not do such a thing, think how much more removed such acts would be from a good and holy God.
@@KevinSmile Also, do you affirm Acts 2:23 as the word of God that Jesus was offered up and crucified according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God? Would you tell God he is a bad father?
“God knows what Sauls gonna do because God knows all time & because.. God made Saul.” I love it. It really is so obvious, when you acknowledge that it’s all about God & Him glorifying Himself.
@@hardpl8368 indeed. How does HE 'Know'; cause HE Carries all things along to their intended destination, accomplishing all that HE Pleases!!-) Amen. Do, please, remember that GOD Is TRIUNE; so, if GOD Were 'me, me, ME', being selfish would be a Godly virtue. However, The FATHER Points to The SON, as does The SPIRIT as "the Unique GOD" and The SON Points to The FATHER, by that Same SPIRIT -TRIUNE GLORY!!-)
I think the problem with all of this is that man thinks God has an obligation to save everybody, or give everybody a chance to be saved, and they think that salvation comes about how man respond to God. It's all about man, and therefore a false gospel. God can save whoever he wants and whenever he wants.
Greetings. I Worship A Righteous, Holy, Loving, Just, Merciful God who died for the sins of every creature 1 John 2:2. My God will never damn any oerson to hell to show His sovereign power. God bless you.
@normmcinnis4102 _"Who gave us our will?"_ A: God made man in His own image, meaning that innately, God's law is imprinted on the invisible fabric of man's inner being. God gave man sentience; an ability to know and make decisions, based on revealed knowledge. Before the fall man is limited in knowledge and understanding because there is no comprehension of what the consequence of disobedience is, other than what God decrees -"you shall surely die". God gave us our nature, and with that nature an ability to choose but not an ability to foresee; foreseeing belongs only to God. Also, man is created finite, and, unlike God, the only being who is incapable of change, and incapable of doing anything other than who His character and nature is, man is susceptible to temptation. This means that man was both incapable of having the wisdom and incapable of having the power (God's immutable nature) to resist Satan. It is only because of our union with God, through Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit, that we are able to overcome Satan and endure til the end. This is because God's word and nature is unchanging; union with Him is sealed; His word leaves His mouth and does not return to Him empty, accomplishing all that He has decreed, as Jeremiah says. This is why we have assurance of salvation and victory over Satan; to be known by, called and chosen by, and held in the hands by God's immutable Word, we have full assurance that God will complete His work. We have a gift that Adam and Eve did not have, and that gift strengthens us in our weakness and gives wisdom to us to overcome the lies and cunning of the Tempter.
@normmcinnis4102 P.S. I'm not a Calvinist either. I'm a charismatic continuationist who simply stumbled upon a reformed soteriology after reading through the Bible in 5 months repeatedly, Genesis to Revelation, in attempt to prove my brother wrong about his Calvinism. So my understanding is simply from seeing the revealed truths about God and discovering the harmonious theological thread, and realising that predestination and free will is all about God the Father predestining the Son to be appointed as King over creation, freely giving Him to unwilling slaves and rebels as a ransom and propitiation, and the Son, in perfect union with the Divine will of the Father, freely laying His life down for a whiring Bride that was enslaved to another husband (Romans 7 heart of stone) before she got Ezekiel 36'd with a heart of flesh, able to now dwell in the reconciliation of Romans 5, free from the slavery of Romans 6 and able to walk freely in Romans 8, because she was Roman 9'd and Ephesians 1-2'd before the foundations of the world, not by human will or effort but by the God who calls and elects out of His free will.
Dr. White is correct. There is one reason and one reason only that Molina ever thought this theological mess up: to protect the assumption of man's "free will", when such a concept is unknown throughout Scripture. Instead we find that all who are in sin are enslaved to sin (dead in their trespasses and sin, we are like the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel 37 which are utterly without life unless God gives us life, and naturally hostile towards God in our natural state) and that those who have been saved by the grace of God are now slaves to righteousness. In either case slaves, which by definition are not free.
Actually, if you read Molina's writing, you'll find that he arrived at his view because he thought it's what best explained the Scriptural data. I recommend Alfred Freddoso's translation if the Concordia.
So if you're a slave to righteousness are you now perfectly obeying God? Ezekiel 37 in its own context does not support Reformed theology (I.e. just like every other passage).
@@dandeliontea7 To your first question: Of course not. Does a slave always perfectly do the will of their master? No, unless you are Christ Jesus. But the difference is that you stopped loving your old master (sin, the flesh, Satan) and now love your new Master. So while we may not be in perfect obedience to Him, your desire is now to do your best for Him. If you think I am wrong in my analysis, I would love for you to justify your position of what being a "slave to righteousness" is. As to your statement: What is the context of Ezekiel 37? What is the purpose of what God shows Ezekiel in the valley of dry bones? Was it just so that Ezekiel could share some random vision? It can be taken in two ways. The first points to the final resurrection of all, both believers and unbelievers, for the judgment and eternal life/death. God is showing His power to bring clearly dead people back to life. The second way it can be interpreted is that, as is said in the 11th verse, the bones are from the whole house of Israel (I'm sure Ezekiel took this as meaning physical Israel, but this also has a double meaning of the called, since Paul makes it clear "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel". So this is talking about both the saved in physical Israel and future Israel, including the Gentiles). In the verse, the bones are saying that they are dried up and that their hope has perished, that they are cut off (i.e. dead). Further on in verse 14, God says "I will put My Spirit within you and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the LORD, have spoken and done it". So summing up those verses, it sounds like 1) the bones represent dead people (sinners) 2) God calls the pile of bones the whole house of Israel (His chosen people, the elect) 3) God resurrects them to life (being born again) and 4) God gives them the Holy Spirit. I believe that due to the context of the passage, the answer is that both ways make sense. Your move.
Wrong. God doesn't need a decree to have perfect knowledge. Having all knowledge is part of his NATURE, not a decree. On Calvinism, God knows nothing without the decree.
I really appreciate Dr. White and have listened to him for over 2 years now. However, seeing him in Professor White mode and hearing a lecture from him is really great. I am glad that y'all are accentuating this aspect of him for our benefit. Thank you! Good job, Rich! ;-)
I am not a Calvinist but all of my favorite pastors/ preachers are. I am certain of Christ’s divinity, god’s sovereignty, and human free will. The seeming contradiction between the latter two I am uncertain of any reconciliation for, but I believe their is one and am eager to better understand.
There is no contradiction. If God is fully sovereign, like Calvinists claim, He can choose when to and when not to exercise His power and authority. He HAS the power, authority, and ability to control all of human actions and behaviors, but that doesn't mean He HAS to do that all the time. IF God is really sovereign, then He has the power and authority to allow us to have certain choices to make.
I was in a similar boat one year ago. I’m now a fully convinced Calvinist. “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.” “No one knows the Father but the Son, and him to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” What can turn a God-hater into a God-worshipper? What can cause a man to believe what he hears? What can cause a corpse to breathe? Only the Lord, Hallelujah!
I know this comment is old, but I will say there is no conflict between God’s sovereignty and human free will. There is only conflict if you believe in *libertarian* free will, which I think is logically impossible (it makes less sense the more you think about it). The free will Calvinists believe in is that we are free to act according to our own wills. In fact, we can *only* act based on our strongest will or inclination at the moment (not to be confused with acting on our most animalistic desires… we can certainly will ourselves to avoid that). Basically, God created us to be who we are, and we can only act based on who we are (our wills). Since our will is naturally corrupt, we cannot objectively choose and understand God, unless the Holy Spirit first changes our will, saving us and leading us to Him.
The difficulty I always have is God's Sovereign Decree + not being the author of sin. It's hard to reconcile that God is totally Sovereign and in complete control and we are the clay He is the Potter, yet simultaneously all sins and offenses against God are our own fault and on our own choice that He did not author.
I remember an example given by RC Sproul that I undoubtedly will butcher, but the basics of it were: Adam witnesses a ditch and jumps into it and dies in the ditch. He couldn’t get out even if he tried because he’s dead; if God raised him he still would need God to climb out because it’s far too deep of a ditch. So God gives us the ability (bringing to spiritual life) and the means (giving us the ability to obey) and He brings us back into His presence. Difficult for sure to encapsulate the grandeur of the divine, and again I certainly butchered it using thumbs to type, but I hope that conveys a bit more. We hold responsibility because we were born into sin. You mentioned being molded like clay, and I think this is well put and biblical; we are clay in the hands of the potter, with no standing at all to question His decisions or moves made.
It is possible, take it this way, when we angered, most of the time out of anger we sin but scriptures says that when God angered, God does not sin. Scriptures and confessions is clear about God is not the author of evil and does not sin, neither does God tempts anyone. (James 1:13), (WCF 3.1) When God decree or permits evil, it is not out of evil intentions because God is holy, if God is holy, then God decree or permits evil to bring greater good out of the evil that we human do. God often permits evil through second agency to bring greater good. for instance in Genesis 50:20: "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today."
I watched the debate between Dr. White and Dr. Craig, and both men explained their positions really well. But Dr. White won on this point. He convinced me of Calvinism rather than Molinism, which I had been considering.
Up until 7:40 James White was demonstrating a decent understanding of the Molinist thesis…the fact that he says at that time the middle knowledge doctrine is just for man is where is ignorance comes in…it is an important doctrine for free will, but it’s also important for God, cos without the concept of Middle Knowledge, God would have no providential planning of a world he wished to create…it would just be all possibilities of “coulds”, and after he selected which world to create it would just be a roll of the dice.
It seems to me that the biggest issue people face with a system of theology like Calvinism is that there is a mystery about how a holy God meets sinful man. Man is responsible for sin, God is responsible for salvation. How does that work? I have no idea how, but I am also not bothered by that because I don't/won't/can't ever know the mind of God, outside what He's given to us in His word, and how He solves that dilemma. I just know when I read the Bible I am told I am dead in my sins and trespasses, completely unable to come to God on my own power, and yet simultaneously told to have faith and to pick up my cross and follow Him. Even after regeneration I must follow and bear fruit. I'm willing to say, its a mystery to me, but completely formed and known in the mind of God.
Thanks you! God calls his elect by the power of the Holy Spirit according to his plan and purpose. I’m guessing you’re seeking salvation. If so, then He has already touched your heart and is “drawing” you to Jesus.
If you read Molina himself, you'll find that he arrived at the concept of middle knowledge because he thought it was the best explanation of the biblical data on divine sovereignty and human freedom/responsibility. I recommend Alfred Freddoso's English translation of The Concordia. Also, as Romans 1:19-20 makes clear, analyzing Scripture is not the only way to arrive at true beliefs about God.
Funny that the only scripture White refers to in this clip is a verse that implies middle knowledge. It seems like he is the one relying on philosophy alone.
@@nosyt42 No christian denies we have knowledge of God from creation, that is irrelevant to Molinism. The question is about the formulation of a doctrine. There are no verses that teach that God uses "Middle Knowledge" to make decisions. I can admit that it could possibly be true (and is orthodox), but it is simply absent from Scripture.
White just assumes what God's abilities and constraints are. Why can't God create something truly free willed? This is all vain philosophy as the bible warns us to avoid.
This concept is addressed in Acts 17. It tells us that God sets up nations (and their peoples) in the place and time of history that gives everyone the best chance they could have at obeying him. I often ponder if that means peoples that never had the chance to ever know God’s word whatsoever (such as remote tribes deep in Congo) were souls that would have rejected God no matter what anyway. This doesn’t teach predestination, only that God is outside time and knows the decisions we will make for ourself - even before we are born.
Correct , exact , truthful theology . This is why I love this man . It took me many years in my sanctification to learn this and I just learned it within the past couple years and now I hear it being talked about by someone else way more learned than myself to confirm it . I would say that’s the holy spiritual in action !
Hmmm..... I'm a bit confused on this one. Certainly, God is timeless. In that regard, there is a chronological point at which creation came to be. Certainly, God knew what he was going to create and everything about what was going to transpire in his creation before he created it (because He Himself is timeless and all-knowing). Is this not true? Is this the same thing as "middle knowledge" or is this a different concept entirely? I think what I've written above is logically consistent and is backed up by Scripture, however I am confused in terms of it's relationship to "middle knowledge". I don't know. I believe that God is the ultimate authority in all things.
Indeed. Sometimes, men try to reason with their own logic which is a far shot from God's logic and knowledge. God knows EVERYTHING, before, now and forever.
Yes, middle knowledge is the knowledge God has about all and any world which he could create. This is a hypothetical knowledge.. i.e knowledge of things that would happen if God created a particular type of world.
No, that's not true; on Reformed Theology *EVERYTHING THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IS GOING TO HAPPEN because THE CALVINIST GOD IS GOING TO cause IT TO HAPPEN!*
I appreciate your comments, but I think it has only further confused me. I think I'm going to look to email Dr. James White and try to get a clearer sense of things. By the way, I consider myself "Calvinist" in my doctrine; That is to say that I follow The Bible, but in doing so many of the ideas that are called "Calvinist" seem to be supported by The Bible. I therefore believe those ideas.
@@hwilliampolenz6713 I suggest you look at original sources to understand different positions.. or atleast learn each position from someone who follows it and is an authority. William lane Craig is a good source to Understand Molonism. Someone like Roger Olson is a good source to understand Arminianism. As to Calvinism being biblical. It's not biblical in my opinion. For example limited atonement which teaches that Jesus died only for the elect is clearly unbiblical. I have observed that Calvinists often misrepresent competing positions.
HOW FREE WILL WORKS: we have two natures: the mind and the heart, or Self. The mind observes and judges the heart, either correctly or incorrectly, either with knowledge, (conscience) or against it… God observes our inner, hidden lives, and enables us to overcome that which we correctly judge as wrong or harmful about ourselves, and at some point, gives us the revelation of His Son and a better judge, the mind of Christ 😇
Mahalo (thank you) for another one of your wonderful teachings. Sorry, but I still don’t quite get it and may never get it. God is absolutely sovereign in all things and I don’t need to know how 😄
I didn’t have time to watch this video but is he saying that an unsaved person like me can never make the right choice? Why won’t God choose me for salvation? I was never popular
And indeed God cannot create a world where everyone is saved without also eliminating the possibility of things like perseverance patience gratitude selflessness etc. because these things require adversity to exist and adversity requires bad agents.
A great rebuttal of Molinism. The concept of Free Will has been a controversial one down through the centuries. The one that appeals to me is that Mankind has Free Will, but only within limits. That covers all bases I hear you say. Well I believe in the Sovereignty of God, and that is biblical, but Man's free will does not override the Sovereignty of God. Otherwise man would be God. And here lies the problem.
we can think of it this way as well... Man is Not privy to the Counsel of God.. this is concerning all of God's decisions and why.... for example JOB..... JOB had No idea.. that God was holding him up to Satan as an example of a righteous man.. and God fearing.. but God knew....God's counsels are not made known to man.but we are the recipients of His decisions......
What he has revealed you can know. Joseph knew later, not as it happened to him, that God meant it for good while his brothers meant it for evil against him. So, if it's something in His Word that He has revealed to us then we can know it. If it's something that he has not revealed, then we won't & can't know it.
My question is did God have knowledge of what he could freely decree before he decreed to create? It seems like if He doesn't then it's a sort of blind decree in my mind.
I would agree with Dustin and also point out that the question assumes that God resides in space and time. He does not. Before decreeing to create there was no time and so it doesn’t make sense to try to set this in a chronological order.
@@Jmachadao92 Not that I disagree with your or Dustin (I agree with your answers), but in defense of Ryan's great question, it's a bit hard to speak of timeless God in human languages as they presume time. But "Before" can refer to chronologically prior or logically prior, and the question (and answers) make sense if we assume the best and consider it in light of the timelessness of God. There is no need to assume chronology with "before".
I'm not a Molinist. The hypocrisy of the Calvinist to call out Molinists for their middle knowledge because it's not in the bible is made clear by their embracing ALL actions being predestined which also is not in the bible. It's doubly hypocritical in light of the FACT that believers from Acts to Augustine promoted free will and it was Augustine who introduced "Calvinistic" predestination into the church from his stoic past.... which most Calvinists are either ignorant of or plug their ears when told this.
The “Augustine used to be a gnostic” argument is one we’ve all heard. We just don’t but any stock into it because it doesn’t matter what he used to be. We all used to be something, praise God we’re not anymore. To claim Augustine taught what he did because if what he used to be is disingenuous. It’s also ironic when you consider that many if the anti-Calvinist who make this point also make a big deal about how they used to be Calvinist.
That would make God the author of sin. You can't have a world with one autonomous being in which there are also beings who do things that being doesn't want them to do.
By proxy, I suppose? This is the universe he chose to create and chose to redeem. His plans were the same before he ever uttered a word in creation. He knew his creation would turn away from him and he already had a plan for salvation. Technically no matter how you look at it, God is the author of sin, as he is the arbiter of what defines sin and the author of the law which showed us our sin. If he was a nicer God, he'd have less strict standards for sin. Your argument is moot.
I'm no genius, but poor humble me can't understand how, the myriads of Bible verses notwithstanding to the contrary ( man slave to sin, blind, dead in trespassing, hostile to God, etc.), people still insist that men have free will. To believe that is proof that they're slaves to sin, blund, dead in trespasses, hostile to God, etc.
"Free will" per se isn't the issue. It's specifically _Libertarian_ theories of free will that deny what scripture describes as the state of our will as being enslaved to sin, etc. The "free will denying Calvinists" have always confessed that man has a free will, philosophically speaking, but describe it in terms that would deny libertarian philosophies and affirm a compatibilist philosophy. But I think if someone doesn't feel comfortable speaking philosophically at all, I wouldn't even use the term "free will" at all, not to affirm it or deny it. Avoid philosophical jargon entirely and just stick to scripture's description of man's will. It doesn't paint the picture most anti-Calvinists want to believe in.
Heres an example of middle knowledge limiting God about which worlds he can create: you can't create patience and perseverance without the existence of adversity and trials. You can't create gratitude without also creating poverty.
Hmmm...So you're saying this whole mess we're in is for Gratitude? What about Spiritual beings then? I haven't watched the video yet, I have had thoughts about not being able to truly Love Truth without Free Will.
"How can God know?" Easily with infinite wisdom and knowledge Middle knowledge is what God knows. He wouldn't be constrained to decree anything based off knowledge alone. I'm no molinist but your argument is full of holes. Can someone explain to me why God being infinite in knowledge and power cannot create a universe where he is completely sovereign and humans have free will?
No. *Omniscience* is all that God knows. That is not "middle knowledge". Your "middle knowledge" informed God to make His best decision for His best decree. But God was only "constrained" (to use your word) by His own attributes (Himself), Omniscience being one of them, and all of them together to decree what we reveal and experience. See "The Existence and Attributes of God" by Charnock.
The thing here, is he thinks middle knowledge has a buffer time for God to exhaust before he does anything. It is not a steelman but a strawman. Maybe, middle knowledge doesn't have to have any "lag time" at all. Maybe God doesn't even need to process it, and instead simply knows it like everything else. It is not a hard concept. Saying God knows xyz could happen is not the same as saying God doesn't know already xyz could or will happen. He isn't learning anything with middle knowledge. Sheesh. It is simply the ability to know the many ins and outs of literally anything that could happen inside of time. An all knowing God must have that knowledge, or he lacks one of the most powerful abilities we can know him to have. Like a super computer with infinite potential, and calculations that are instant or rather . . . everything stored in memory with an unlimited capacity.
Free Will is not the problem but Libertarian Free Will is. Libertarianism will eventually entails to Fatalism but not Determinism, Fatalism is aberrant from Determinism. Compatibilism affirms the compatibility of freedom and responsibility with determinism and it is consistent with scriptures. Just because Libertarian Free Will is convenient for apologetics doesn't mean that it is biblical, i rather be wrong if my wrong is right with God.
The idea that god knowledge is limited by middle knowledge is like saying God is limited because he cannot make a square circle, it doesn’t limit God if creation has properties than are limited and derived from logical truths
@Original O.G. Troll You're claiming God isn't Omnipotent. Your statement is saying God needs to take in new information as it comes in that he doesn't know about. Very dangerous.
Trying to figure this out. To decree something don't you have to have an idea of it before you decree it? Shouldn't God have an idea of us before He decrees us? Help
Regardless of the labels or position and opinions expressed. I had zero will and hope.. When at my worst.. Christ Jesus was at his best. Jesus initiated my eagerness to accept his gifts and calling. Repentance wasn't required. Accepting his invitation on limited options or out of options...Gods will.Free will Is an illusion. We are slave's to the Law agree it is Rightous..Somehow this also .gives life to the Sinful Nature and its These 3 thing's remainFaith,Hope and Love Love the greater of them. The Lord Giveth and the Lord taketh away..He will bless whom he will bless. Curse whom he will curse. Free will leads to death. Surrendered will to Christ Jesus life. ❤
Free will is just another way of saying work based salvation. Coming out of JWs teaching it’s clear to me that free will is man wanting to have the power over salvation same as deeds based salvation. Scriptures teach God decides who he saves not man. If God is good and his wisdom higher than ours than him deciding who he saves is a good thing
@schmaingd What does the Calvinist say sin is? The Biblical definition of sin is missing the mark. Not doing God's will. How can there be sin if God is CAUSING everything to happen? What is sin if EVERYTHING that happens, ONLY happens because GOD CAUSES it to happen? Also, how can there be obedience if EVERTHING ONLY happens because, AGAIN, God causes all to happen, even "obedience" to God's commands? What about verses like Joshua 24:15, "... CHOOSE for yourselves this day whom you will serve..." AND, You'll NEVER convince me that, as hyper Calvinists believe, God causes EVERYTHING to happen, even murder, rape, child molestation, LGBTQ lifestyles, anti-Christ religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, atheism etc. Also, here is ABSOLUTE Biblical proof that God does NOT cause everything to happen: In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, "People built high places to sacrifice their children (in fire) to foreign gods, and He (God) says, "I did NOT COMMAND this, nor did it enter my mind."
I praise God that you came out of the JWs. I hope you find true freedom in Christ. I will disagree that free will is a works based salvation. Paul specifically contrasts works and belief in Romans 4:5. For Paul, "works based salvation" is salvation that is sought through obedience to the Law of Moses. But faith isn't like that. It isn't a work. This is what Romans 4 teaches. You can humbly believe in God, and nowhere does the Bible call that a work.
Exactly! Its funny that when the anti-Calvinist speaks of free will, it sounds like they are talking about saving themselves through their own free will choice. But as I read scripture, it was my free will that got me into trouble, and now I need something outside myself to save me. I don't want more of my sinful free will to condemn me, I want God's will to extend grace to me, a sinner.
The problem of free will is that it doesn't fit into calvinism. That's it. Calvinists create a bunch of false dichotomies to argue in defense of determinism. Quite absurd imo
Weird given that all the Reformed confessions affirm free will being perfectly compatible with a creator God who made all things. So what is the right understanding? No point posturing about how wrong you think the other guy is if you can't even get an alternative off the ground.
@@oracleoftroyour God is so powerful that He knows what we will do. We have 100% free will and somehow God’s will is always done. God cannot be the author of sin> therefore we have to have free will
@@jacoblayman2033you do have free will. You just freely will to sin and choose evil and love darkness as opposed to Him until he opened your heart. The scriptures are crystal clear, lol. I don’t see what the big deal is.
It should be noted that any reference to Molinism having its origin with a Jesuit during the Counter-Reformation as some sort of point against its validity is guilty of the genetic fallacy. A view is not invalidated because of where or when it originated.
Molinism is false because it goes against the Bible. “remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, 👉declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and 👉I will accomplish all my purpose,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and 👉I will bring it to pass; 👉I have purposed, and 👉I will do it. “Listen to me, you stubborn of heart, you who are far from righteousness:” Isaiah 46:9-12 ESV ☝️
Yup. It's helpful to know the origins and intention of the theory, but ultimately that proves nothing. Fortunately White didn't act like the anti-Calvinists who think merely pointing out that Augustine used to be a Gnostic is somehow an argument against Calvinism, but actually went on to give more direct evidence for why middle knowledge is problematic.
@@shopson6991 why think that because God brings something to pass, that that would necessarily mean God could not have accomplished it without violating a persons free will? I could be missing your point, but that is what I’m getting from your comment.
14:11 that is a metaphysical assertion. I see no reason to accept that SINCE if I WERE to accept that premise then as you said, it COSTS me my responsibility for my actions. It also makes GOD unjust for punishing Evil and therefore makes GOD unloving. I therefore reject a metaphysic which Makes God things contrary to what He says He is. At this point, DETERMINISM is no longer Biblical since it posits that there is no ME or CHOICE that I can truly make.
Freewill. What does it mean? Does it mean freedom to will absolutely anything that I might think? I can freely think of sprouting wings and flying like a bird. However, I am not free to "will" to do it. Why? Because it is not in my nature to fly like a bird. So, freewill has no meaning in that scenario because "will" is subordinate to "nature". In other words, the will is a 2nd order thing governed by nature. This is how I think of freewill. I am free to will anything that is within the confines of my nature. What are the implications of this state of nature? Let me run a couple of questions by you. The first question is: Am I free to please God? Can I, on the exercise of my will, please God while in an unregenerate state of nature? The simple answer to this question is, no. "Without faith it is impossible to please God." The next question is: Does the natural man possess faith? Not apart from the saving work of Jesus Christ. Hebrews 12:2 tells us that Jesus is the originator and perfecter of faith. Think of that. He is both the source and effective power of faith. There is no faith -- saving faith -- apart from Jesus Christ. When does He impart saving faith? I think that answer is at the time of new birth -- the receiving point of the new nature. Upon receipt of the new nature -- becoming a partaker of the Divine nature (2 Pet1:4) -- the new believer can now answer my first question in the affirmative. His will now has freedom that is unconstrained by the old nature which is "without strength" (Rom 5:6). Paul says something on this in his 1st letter to Corinth in chapter 2:14. "The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit because they are foolishness to him and neither can he know them." In other words, the unregenerate man does not want to know spiritual things; further, he lacks the capacity to know spiritual things. We clearly see that the natural man's will is subordinate to his nature. His nature finds spiritual things a foolish pursuit and his nature lacks the capacity to discern spiritual things so the outcome is already determined. His will, consistent and subordinate to his nature, freely rejects spiritual things as foolish. So, back to the beginning. Freewill is there; however, it is constrained by state of nature.
@@Saratogan Free will, in the libertarian sense, means the ability to choose such antecedent conditions are insufficient to causally determine one's choice.
@@nosyt42 , I am having some difficulty making sense of your definition of freewill. It seems to be missing a conjunction "that" after ""such". Have I got that correct? If so, can I ask you a question based on my alteration of your definition? If antecedent conditions are insufficient what must be added to overcome the insufficiency of those conditions? BTW, I have not yet bought your definition. I'm just trying to think it through. What do you think of the state of nature that the apostle Paul speaks about when it comes to spiritual things? Are you opposed to that statement that he makes?
@@Saratogan Yes, there should be a "that" after "such." According to libertarians, what is missing from the antecedent conditions in a free will choice is the causal input of the agent itself. It is formulated so as to preclude causal determinism, which libertarians generally believe necessitates the effect and obliterates human moral responsibility. There are different ways to take what Paul says about our natures, including interpreting it as "that which is common to all mankind," which is compatible with all mankind freely choosing to sin. But, in any event, libertarian free will is a causal account of choosing and says nothing of the range of choices available to us. Perhaps sinners only have evil choices available to them, or, even more restrictive, only one choice in any given circumstance. Even so, so long as the choosing itself is not causally determined by antecedent conditions, then sinners have libertarian freedom. I take 1 Corinthians 10:13 to be sufficient to show that at least regenerate Christians do in fact have libertarian freedom.
@@nosyt42, Your comment about how to read Paul as possibly ""that which is common to all mankind" is difficult from the context of 2:14. In Chapter 2, Paul is contrasting the spiritual man with the natural man so the thought of that which is common to all mankind is not possible in context. He is talking about two states of nature. I surmise from your presence on RUclips that you are a Lutheran. If so, I expect that you have read Bondage of The Will. It is quite repetitive but has some nuggets. Luther definitely is on the side of what I have said here. Where is the "will" resident? I think that I can say without controversy that the "will" is resident in the "mind". Paul speaks of two "minds" in Romans 8 and contrasts them. They are the "mind of the flesh" and the "mind of the Spirit". He says that the mind of the flesh (natural) is death and he says that the mind of the Spirit (spiritual) is life. He also says that the mind of the flesh is enmity against God. So, if the residence of the will is naturally at war with God how is the will free to surrender to God? It is not. It is subordinate to the mind. The mind must be defeated and is done when one passes from death (mind of the flesh) to life (mind of the Spirit) by Divine quickening (Eph 2:5) and then the will is no longer inextricably linked to the mind of the flesh. To your last point; absolutely. I said that earlier. Regeneration frees the will due to the new nature and therefore pleasing God now becomes a joy (not foolishness) and a very real capacity.
I believe that we have the ability to choose our earthly life as we see fit. We dont have complete free will, where we can do whatever we want, we have a limited amount of freedom, which can be atributed to beig made in gods image. I also believe that God is completely sovereign and knew all of history before the universe was created. I believe that God is able, in his infinielye abilities, to make creatures that are capable of making free choices, while being completely aivereign over everything, and maintaining his character through all of it. Thats how big God is. To me, if you want to reduce God to something smaller you can take 1 or 2 things away. I believe in an infinite God, which cannot be understood by man, so if your argument is that you understand God completely, therefore an argument I make couldnt fit into his character then i think you believe in a much smaller God.
This all just man made philosophy, nothing more. And that’s fine, but don’t call it “biblical theology” or whatever. No one is obligated to believe anything said in this video.
James doesn't what you say mean that God’s omniscience is contingent upon His sovereignty? I thought none of His attributes were contingent on any of the rest of them.
13:19 "you and I both know that *so much* of what we do is based upon God's decree." James White can't consistently describe his own theology, let alone anyone else's.
You can't even parse his stelatemeny, let alone understand his theology. What he said is that we can know intuitively that particular circumstances in our lives are traced directly to God's decree. He is talking about what we know. He is not saying that some things we do are not based upon God's decrees, just that some are not intuitive.
I'm not a Molonist, but this was an atrocious review by White here. Not only is he (probably deliberately) pretending that there aren't answers to his basic questions on Molonism, but he covers everything with a layer of condescension. Calling Molonists "followers of Molina"? He himself gets really annoyed when people call him a follower of Calvin because he's a Calvinist, but apparently he can't afford the same charity back.
His critique of the term middle knowledge also applies to terms natural and free which has been used traditionally but is not biblically expressed in the manner he seems to think middle knowledge should be
Trying to simplify this argument, badly admittedly as I'm new to Theology. 1. God can process and store X# of variables from t=0 to this moment. 2. The amount of variables humans can envision an entity processing and storing is X + Y where Y is a positive number accounting for everything, in heaven (other than Himself) and Earth. 3. God 'knows' the future as demonstrated in prophecy. 4. It is extremely unlikely for God to include in His design a universe with requisite processes, boundaries, limits, or any telemetric instrumentation in His creatures to accomplish every one of His goals in his creation of free willed agents. 5. Human and Elohim (other than the Trinity) free will are an insurmountable obstacle for God to accomplish His goals. 6. God's goals are accomplished. 7. Human free will cannot exist. Is this the argument presented in this particular snippet plainly stated? I am sure either I am missing something or there are much better arguments propounded elsewhere. My concern is that God has limited Himself in some ways, we all agree on that. From a deterministic perspective we are starting by limiting His computational power and ascribing every highest good and the most grotesque evil act to Him temporally in exchange for an eternal Glory. Secondary causation seems an absurd patch to those who can't swallow God committing all evil, seems a cowardly position not exegeted from Scripture. Free willers tend to limit God in thinking that EVERYTHING is about them and many believe that their belief in God saves them with cheap Grace. God turns around and poof, "Hey look at the tally board!". I am leaning toward free will because I would rather think that I am way too self centered (which is forgivable ad it is our natural estate), rather than ascribing every grotesque evil to my Holy God. Read this with your guard down as much as possible if you are courageous enough, these are the verses that haunt me as they are not in Psalms or Proverbs which can proof text anything but historical narrative, in context: Jeremiah 32:34-36 English Standard Version 34 They set up their abominations in the house that is called by my name, to defile it. 35 They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. How else could He communicate this any more clearly saying there is at least 1 thing He didn't command and at least 1 thing did not come from His mind? Sovereign looks to those under him /vice versa. I would think if He created us as programmed iPads some with firmware repeating the words "Love you love you love" for eternity and some saying "hate you hate you hate you" He would never use the human concept of Sovereignty as there are no deeper parallels to draw from as human Sovereignty is categorically different. Conjecture: He would have likely used Storytelling or authorship most likely to describe our relationship to Him as characters or some kind of marionette. (I think the potter and clay is a beautiful and strong metaphor in favor of determinism.) Dr. White agreed that there was no concept of Determinism anywhere in Judaism or Christianity in the early Church until 400+ years A.D. with Augustine. Augustine had already been a determinist for at least a decade in a cult called Manicheanism prior to His convenient conversion to Christianity synchronous with Constantine's declaration of Christianity becoming the state religion. The only prior Deterministic major religions were Eastern (Vedic, Buddhist..) I am open to correction so please feel free to point me to any primary sources I may be missing. I am fully aware of the usual verses such as in Ephesians, Genesis, Romans 9 etc but those have excellent explanations to consistently interpret them from a non-determined, originalist perspective and most demonstrate the opposite conclusion to an uncommitted observer. I am also open because I don't want to commit either the genetic nor negative inference fallacies which I admit I fell into above a bit 🤦 I am still investigating this issue but what I DO know by direct, miraculous revelation is that I believe the Gospel in it's beautiful, Divine simplicity explained in FOUR verses 1 Cor 15:1-4 that we all agree on. I am a convert from the religion of Scientism, for which I've payed dearly with my reputation with other faculty, which is rooted in Determinism so I am taking it slow as I am biased toward it. Statistically we are likely all wrong from God's perspective in so many ways with our espoused propositional Truth claims that we absolutely KNOW to be True which is why I hold the Gospel in a separate, properly basic category. Our Master had to simplify His Gospel so succinctly and clear so that we as a family from Martin Luther to Dr. Michael Brown to Dr. Leighton Flowers to perhaps even Fred Phelps, Esq. we ALL agree on the MOST important thing. Love you Brothas and Sistahs!
I'm not sure I follow where you are going with the number of variables thing in 1 & 2. Is this from White's reference to Molinism a la WLC? In terms of the knowledge God possesses compared to man, most Reformed would stress that there isn't just a quantitative difference in knowledge, but a qualitative difference as well. IOW, God doesn't just know more, he knows better. In part because he created everything and knows it in ways we can never know, in part because our own thinking is marred by sin, in part because we are creatures and his ways are just higher than ours. _"7. Human free will cannot exist."_ This can't be White's conclusion as his own confession affirms human free will, see London Baptist Confession chapter 9 for an overview. White is refuting some particular theories of free will, not the concept as a whole. _"How else could He communicate this any more clearly saying there is at least 1 thing He didn't command and at least 1 thing did not come from His mind?"_ Not at issue. Yes, you can read all of God's law and find nothing that allows for and several explicit condemnations of idol worship and sacrificing children. By saying God decrees or ordains all that comes to pass, we aren't saying God has to specifically ordain each particular event and micromanage it, but rather (as Westminster Confession 3.1 puts it) he establishes human free will and the liberty and contingency of second causes by what he ordains. God designed humans and ordained that they would have dominion over the earth, and he also gave a law over them that he will judge them by. Within the authority God gave via his ordination, they broke God's law and thus face his wrath for sin. _"He would never use the human concept of Sovereignty as there are no deeper parallels to draw from as human Sovereignty is categorically different."_ Yet he declares that he is the King of kings and Lord of lords. I can't think of a clearer affirmation of God's sovereignty. _"Dr. White agreed that there was no concept of Determinism anywhere in Judaism or Christianity in the early Church until 400+ years A.D. with Augustine."_ Where exactly did he say this? Timestamp? I've only heard this from the fringes of Christianity who care more about opposing Calvinism than truthtelling. White's position is that Christianity is determinist, period. The debate is over exactly how and to what extent. It's hard to argue that it isn't when the very first verse declares that God created the heavens and the earth.
@@iglesiaagapecalvarychapelr6982Hi, thanks for the reply. From Josephus description of the Pharisees: "They assert that everything is accomplished by faith. They do not, however, deprive the human will of spontaneity, it having pleased God that there should be a mixture, and that to the will of fate should be added the human will with its virtue or baseness" Josephus, Ant. 18.1.3 The Sadducees argued that free will was ultimately determined by the course of history, not necessarily God. I'd imagine they'd be like a bunch of Bill Clinton types after reading about their behavior and beliefs. That was a long rabbit trail. Lol. (Josephus, War II. viii. 14; Antiq. XIII. v. 9). The closest I could find were the Cult of the Essenes of Dead Sea Scroll fame.
15:50 Middle Knowledge (MK) is define by the Pattern of Being. God is beyond being. To me, MK is recognizing God’s Decree follows a pattern of Being that is not arbitrary or based on mere rationalization
Dr. White, is it true, as some say, that God knows everything from all eternity, including things that have not yet occurred in our natural world? Also, if man's will is not free, is man still morally culpable for bad acts? Is sin even possible if man isn't free?
man makes choices. He is who he is. He freely chooses to sin, he freely chooses to do good. He is accountable for his choices. God is the primary cause of everything but there's secondary causes, and these are from man. God has purpose and he uses mans choices for that. I dont know how God degrees all yet He is not the author of sin. Man is morally culpable because he chooses to sin.
@@youvasquez But you see how the fact that we are responsible for our sins means that we do have free will. This is contrary to what Dr. White teaches. He is in error.
Here's what I find most fascinating about Calvinists. They believe man was born sinful because of Adam, AND deserves eternal punishment for being sinful. Said another way: man has no free-will, AND suffers forever because God is just. There's only one possible explanation for this anti Christ unbelief; God has blinded their eyes so they can't understand the truth. God reconciled ALL to Himself in Christ, and is holding nothing against anyone. We played no causal role in becoming sinful, and no causal role in being redeemed. What God accomplished (past tense) in Christ was the redemption of ALL. Now that's GOOD NEWS. ☀️☀️
“If we sin wilfully” 🤔 Do we have that terrible possibility to choose satan instead of God? Can’t we switch our attention from God to smth filthy? My experience say “yes”. I can say He allowed it to happen but didn’t order for sure.
Your experience doesn't dictate the truth. The verse you reference is in Hebrews and it was written to Jewish Christians who were being pressured to go back to the old covenant sacrificial system and ordinances. The writer of Hebrews was not teaching that we can truly be born again but then choose Satan later on. The writer of Hebrews' point was that those who profess Christ but later turn away (apostasy) were never saved to begin with. He wrote it as a warning, not to teach that you can lose your salvation, but to teach that if you continue to deliberately sin then you may not even be like you profess to be.
@@contextforchrist2395 all I am saying is that if temptation comes( and it comes close to saved people) you are in the middle to make a choice. And you feel at least some portion of control for sure. Doesn’t it say that there are situations in witch we have to choose?
Great question! Personally, I think he can and did in Adam. But since Adam sinned, we are slaves to sin, or dead in sin. Dead people do not come to life on their own, and slaves do not free themselves. So the only way to God is through Jesus, and the only way to Jesus is him setting us free. Whoever the son sets free, is free indeed
@@timothyvenable3336 While it's true that dead people don't come to life on their own, this doesn't prove that we aren't autonomous in our wills. In the Bible, "dead" means separated. You'll see it used like this in Revelation 3:1, and of the son in the parable of the prodigal son, where the father says his son was dead but is now alive when he came home. I see no reason to invent another usage when Paul uses it in Ephesians 2. Of course we need Christ to set us free from our slavery to sin, but that doesn't mean we are unable to come to Christ. A slave can absolutely free themselves though. Lots of slaves ran away. Some slaves probably liked their slavery though and felt compelled to stay. Others didn't. So that's not a helpful analogy for you.
@@luthlexor123 we do have autonomous wills, except without the ability to choose God (Romans 8:5-9). Absolutely, dead means separation from God. You’re right. But God is the one to bring us back, we don’t come back on our own without him giving us the desire We are unable to choose Christ by our own free will (Roman’s 8 and 1 Corinthians 2:14) As far as the slave analogy, no analogy is perfect. However, your counter example is really bad. First of all, are you trying your say slaves could just leave their owners and they’d be free? Because that’s not how freedom worked. Also, slavery was different in the Roman culture (Jesus’s time). It was a contract usually. You couldn’t just decide you didn’t want to be a slave, you’re only option of being free from your owner was to be bought by someone else or freed by your owner. Either way, you could not free yourself. A better counter would be to say only Jesus can free us from our sin, but we have the free will to ask him to do so. But your counter example was really, really bad
@@timothyvenable3336 Yes, people could run away from their owners and be free of the rule of their rulers. That is to say, a slave's will isn't dominated by their master. Their circumstances might be restricted, but it's not like their will is controlled by their master. As for not being able to choose God, that's nowhere in the Bible. Not once is it said that we cannot convert without God choosing us before the foundation of the world. The two verses you've chosen to support your thesis (Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 2) are both about behaving or accepting things from God as a matter of maturity. Paul is exhorting *believers* to have the mind of the Spirit. He's saying without taking this mindset, you won't please God as a Christian. The context has *nothing* to do with conversion. You need to extrapolate out from the context of maturity to conversion, which is a very dicey way to get your theology. At *best*, it's indirectly taught here, which means there is no clear specific teaching in the Bible which says "Unbelievers cannot ever choose God without God first regenerating them, which He only does selectively". Calvinism teaches that God is manifestly unjust. He punishes people born blind for being blind. He punishes people born dead for being dead. This makes absolutely no sense, and would make God unjust. The God as presented in scripture judges people for their own choices, not default conditions from birth that they have no control over. Jesus marveled at the unbelief of people. According to Calvinism, Jesus shouldn't have marveled. He should have thought "Of course these people are unbelievers, because I didn't pick them to be regenerated before the foundation of the world". No, the Bible is full of places where people plea and call people to repent. God isn't working behind the scenes to secretly regenerate some but not others.
Funny, at the beginning, I'm sitting here thinking that this sounds more like a philosophy lesson than theology. It's so many layers upon layers of reasoning applied to the biblical text, and then some conclusion. He then says something like, "when I read philosophy it's so much like putting God into the categories of mankind" etc. He seems to be criticizing what he himself is doing. He's using his framework and putting God into those categories. That's how it seems to me anyway.
11:17 Yes.. there are a few verses where God says If Sodom and Gomorrah HAD seen the miracles you see, they WOULD HAVE repented IF I go to the City, WILL Saul come? GOD: Yes, he will come. David: If I go anyways, will the people of the city give me to Saul or protect me? GOD: They will give you to Saul. David: Thanks Lord for your middle knowledge. I will NOT go to the city then.
I think he is very confused of what Molinism really means. The fact is that while Calvinism is determinism by means of God acting on your will, Molinism is determinism by circumstances. So, both are really very similar at the very end. In other words, the supposed "free will" of Molinism is not such, since God has put the creature in a situation in which the creature cannot act or choose in a way he doesn't want. This is the part that he is missing and will never tell you.
I've noticed that about Molinism. The only free will on Molinism is that of potential humans. By the time God chooses which universe to instantiate, actualized humans are stuck of a fatalistic track that the potential humans chose for them. It ends up being far more deterministic than Calvinism, which affirms that God established man's free will and the liberty and contingency of second causes by what he ordains (Westminster Confession 3.1).
The Molinist conception of free will is definitely not deterministic; it is indeterministic. The way libertarian free will is defined is that it is "the ability to choose such that antecedent conditions are insufficient to causally determine one's choice." So, while the circumstances in which one chooses may themselves have been set up deterministically, the agent's choice is not causally determined by those circumstances.
@@nosyt42 While true, the Molinist essentially has God save scumming the universe until it give the output God wants. So sure, the possible universes are random and indeterministic, but that doesn't stop God from determining the outcome through repeated trials and only actualizing the one he wants.
"If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it." Isaiah 1:19-20 God states it as a choice with a reward or consequence. That is a direct quote from God.
True. But what was the outcome everytime man has had a choice? At some point men fail… Adam and Eve failed. israel had failed. The Apostles have failed. Because in the end it is not only about a possibility of a choice - it is about ability to choose rightly. It is not about rules and behaving outwardly the right way - the Pharisees did all that. It is about a change of heart, transformation of our very nature - this is only what God can do and He does it with Grace. „I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy” - also word from God…
Not sure what having a choice is supposed to prove. That man has "free will"? Calvinists already agree. See Westminster Confession chapter 9 for an overview of the position. That God doesn't have a decree? Yet it says "For the mouth of the LORD has spoken it." Would they have the choice without God giving them the choice?
@@oracleoftroy Honestly, I have no idea what Calvanists believe. It seems like they are splitting the atoms of individual hairs with quarks most of the time.
Calvinism logically leads to the heresy of monothelitism. Thank God early christians like Saint Maximus the Confessor already rejected such heresy. I recommend reading “Reconsidering Tulip” by Alexander Renault, as well as Disputations with Pyrrhus by St Maximus the Confessor
Nonsense statement. "Monotheltism?" Who among Israel deserved to be saved or were saved by their own merit? If you've ever read the bible, you know the answer is abosultely nobody! Yet God spared a "Remnant" ther HE preserved. They did not preserve themselves! Was God saving a remnant in the Old Testament "Monothelitism?" Christians like you mock and demonize God's word and you don't even know it! The problem is because you don't actually read scripture in it's entirety and what you do read, you insert your man-centered theology into the text!
@@rolysantos "Yet God spared a "Remnant" ther HE preserved. They did not preserve themselves!" The Bible actually specifically tells us why God preserved them. This is in the Old Testament verses, and also these verses find their way into NT citations. It's because they didn't bow the knee to Baal. Romans 9 is not about individual salvation. It's about God's choice to define Israel. Paul was never talking about God determining who would believe or not. It's about saying to the world "Belief in Jesus now saves", and Jewish people getting upset about that because they faithfully followed to Law for "nothing".
@@luthlexor123 1. Correct GOD SPARED a remnant. Not sure why you made this comment. 2. The remnant were not "preserved" or "reserved" BECAUSE they did not bow the knee to Baal. The remnant did not bow the knee BECAUSE it is God KEPT Them! It is God and God ALONE who causes us to seek Him (Do you remember these verses?) Who KEEPS us from sin. (Do you know any of these verses?) 3. Romans 9 is 100% about God's sovereign choice in election "from the SAME LUMP" of humanity! do you know why God needed a "NEW" covenant "NOT LIKE" the old one? Who was at fault in the Old Covenant? What did they conintually do whether Jew or Gentile? What did GOD DO to solve the problem? When you understand these things, you'll understand God's sovereignty in election.
@@rolysantos I understand that Calvinism teaches that, but I'd rather go with what the Bible says. The Bible says God kept the remnant because of their actions: "But I will spare seven thousand in Israel-every knee that has not bent to Baal, every mouth that has not kissed him" Calvinism has it completely backwards and inserts a man made theology.
@@luthlexor123 No my friend, it's not a matter of "Calvinism," it's what the bible actually teaches. Have you ever read Ezekiel 6? Who did God save? Why? were the 'spared' ones more worthy or at least not as loathesome to God? Have you ever read Isaiah, Jeremiah? Do you understand WHY God needed a NEW covenant? Read Hebrews 8: "God found fault with THE PEOPLE" They did not remain faithful (they turned away) So I TURNED AWAY FROM THEM! Was it just a few of them? "Most" of them? How many does Isaiah say were saved because "they did something good" or "their actions were worthy?" Turning away from God WAS THE PROBLEM in the Old Covenant. Gentiles, who did not have the law "went their own way" "By NATURE" (Acts 14:16, Ephesians 2) And even Israel who was given God's law to obey "Turned their own way." So again, HOW MANY "turned their own way? "ALL we like sheep have gone astray. EACH OF US (every single one) has gone HIS own way." Do you believe Isaiah? Or was Isaiah a "Cavlinist" who "had it backwords?" What would have happened if GOD had not preserved a remnant according to Isaiah? "Unless THE LORD had left us a remnant.." WE would have been like WHO?????? So unless God kept a remnant, ALL of Israel would have been like S&G, yet it wasn't God who preserved them, it was themselves? And here we return to the nonsensical beliefs of the 'free will' proponents that THEY, like these remnant of Israel, are able to preserve themselves AND want to, while others, just like them, were not and did not! And you truly believe this?????? No brother! Read Isaiah 49. The mission of "the servant" "Israel" (Jesus) is to 1. Restore the remnant of jacob (the earthly Israel who were God's "Preserved" ones. His Elect) (See Romans 11:7 where that's exactly what Jesus did) 2. Bring in the gentiles (see Ephesians 2, 3, Acts 10) where that's exactly what Jesus did! BTW, The ONLY reason every single person does not turn away from God Still today, is because of what HE does INSIDE of them. In the NEW covenant, GOD "causes them to fear Him" SO THAT they will NEVER turn away again (Read Jeremiah 32:40, a synopsis of the NC and Hebrews 8) Relying on man's obedience FAILED! because ALL of them were in Adam! But the New Adam will NOT fail, and those whom HE chooses WILL COME to HIm! They cannot, not come to Him! There were ALREADY His when He came to find Him. God had ALREADY given them to the son (see John 17) God has an elect that HE chose and He will not bring His wrath on the earth until ALL of them are in the 'fold.' THIS is exactly what 2 Peter 3:9 means that God is "not willing that ANY should perish." His SHEEP (Mat 18:12-14)
Not exhaustive divine determinism, nor middle knowledge, nor some turbo kind of Pelagianism (if that was even a thing), but Synergism is the Orthodox / early Church view. Essence-Energy distinction. Providence = the view of the Greek Fathers, John of Damascus etc... God in no way decrees the bad, evil, privation of the good. Sovereign, yes... But In No Way the the micro manager x
I love James White, but it is so very obvious, as I know others have pointed out before, to anyone who has actually studied this that he totally misses the boat on this. Rather than continuing to teach on a topic he doesn’t seem to understand why not actually engage in direct conversation with someone like WLC and actually listen? You may not agree, but at least you’d have the opportunity of having someone who has studied this explain to you why you misunderstand the position. James, have you reached out to WLC? Unless you become a full blown determinist making God the author of evil, if you simply follow the logic of a White’s own reformed position then it is obvious that he himself believes in the concept of middle knowledge. Also, I don’t know any serious scholar who thinks Molinism/middle knowledge answers everything. However, it does at least attempt to offer a logically coherent explanation, in my opinion, then today’s traditional reformed position which violates basic logic in making man responsible (response-able), while claiming he has no ability to respond to anything himself. The whole thing is just laughable from a logical standpoint. This is why, for example, you’d be hard pressed to find people with formal training in logic subscribe to the traditional reformed position. To be fair, Calvinist theologians like Sproul always end up admitting this themselves by often concluding their long talks with something like, “it may not make logical sense, but that’s what the Bible says.” I cringe every time I hear that - maybe, just maybe, the problem is not the Bible, but your interpretation of the text which makes no logical sense?
Are you born again? I ask because you seem to have a problem with someone believing the Bible despite not fully understand it. It seems you have the assumption that Christianity only makes sense if we can understand how God does things, which is utterly explained in the Bible we cannot do. Have you read the book of Job? The reason why not so many scholars subscribe to traditional biblical views is also explained in the Bible. Unfortunately, the wise according to the world miss the whole point of the Bible, most of the time, because they are too proud to just believe where God is silent or human logic fails.
Yes, he has reached and try to get WLC but the man will not do it. And if you cringe every time you hear "the bible says" that cpuld be a pretty good sign you need to repent and believe and be born again into the family of God.
@@cesarchavez9897 actually other Molinists have reached out to White to engage him in conversation. I can think of Tim Stratton, Eric Hernandez and even Kirk MacGregor, who is by far the greatest authority on Molinism on the globe. White has declined. For some reason, he just wants to engage Craig.
@@cesarchavez9897 Where did you hear that James White reached out to WLC? Genuine question. I am saddened by the fact you somehow didn’t see, or just chose to blatantly ignore what I explicitly said (and I quote myself), “the problem is not the Bible, but your interpretation of the text which makes no logical sense.” I have no issue with the inerrancy of scripture. I think many Calvinists have the issue. My Bible does not have contradictions. My Bible does not say that the color white is also black, and then insist that I and others must accept that because the Bible says it. If I think the Bible says a logical contradiction like that, then my conclusion is always that it is I who is misinterpreting the text, not that “the Bible is wrong,” OR “I must accept that white is also black.” Calvinists claim to hold scripture in high regard, yet when faced with blatant logical contradictions that their interpretations of the text inevitably results in they don’t say, “perhaps my interpretation is wrong” and go back to see why that may be. That’s a very low view of scripture, in my opinion. If my conclusions result in logical incoherence of contradictions I assume it is because my interpretation is wrong, and I go back to look at why my interpretation may be wrong. I’m not beholden to defending “a” position like Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, or any other kind of “ism” or worldview.
I was just making a snarky comment. I didn't really sign up for a debate. I will simply say that your comment reveals a certain presupposition about causality. That should probably be worked out before lobbing aphorisms over the fence.
So belief in middle knowledge means that there are some “worlds” that God can’t create, which means God is not omnipotent. Middle knowledge is not a Christian doctrine.
No.... Middle knowledge says there are possible worlds that God *won't* create, because God has motives for creating. God could create infinite universes with an infinite number of you if He wanted to.
all this AND the Lord God, the Holy Trinity, is not BEYOND TIME AND SPACE, so has already created all time, beginning to end, and is not somehow subject to it (time), perplexed by it, nor dependent upon it (those attributes are only for the created).
Yes. I think that right there is why Middle knowledge fails. It makes God dependent on independent actions of potential man in potential universes instead of letting God be God and creator of what he wants to create for his own good purposes.
Uh no. You’re either a slave to Christ and righteousness or a slave to your own sin but you are a slave to something and subject to its authority. There is no truly libertarian autonomy for the creature, only for the creator. ”Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?“ Romans 6:16
@bradgarcia716 First off that Scripture testifies against YOU. Do you know what obey means? Surely you do. Two more, does God make you believe? Can the devil male you obey him? When Paul gives you that Scripture, he is saying that we are a slave to whomever we obey, not you are a slave to whoever makes you obey them. I hope you see the difference. You are only a slave to who you obey! Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Chris, who with my mind, I serve the law of God...."
Everytime i listen to this man all i can think is how bad this guy needs to take a basic critical thinking course. He’s too deep in the weeds to realize his definitions are his own made or given to him by other men and not of God. He praises his name with his lips but not his heart
Under the rigour of a proper Biblical exegesis, we quickly discover that the idea of God’s ‘natural knowledge’ and God’s ‘free knowledge’ is a theological canard constructed to accommodate the (utterly unBiblical) idea of God’s ‘middle knowledge’ - an artificial abstraction contrived by men like William Lane Craig to somehow salvage the ‘sovereignty of man’ while paying little more than lip service to the absolute sovereignty of God… I really don’t understand why the disciples of Dr Craig aren’t also troubled by the fact that he insists on appealing to two extra-Biblical sources to support his Autonomian commitments, rather than allowing the sufficiency of the very Word of God (2Tim 3:16,17) to speak for itself on the things of God… On the one hand, Craig employs an argument formulated by a Muslim apologist (amongst others), Al-Ghazali, as ‘proof’ for the existence of God (as though it were possible to reduce the infinitude of God to the level of finite human comprehension)! And then, Craig employs an argument formulated by Luis de Molina, a Spanish Jesuit priest commissioned by Pope Paul III as a Romanist ‘soldier of the Catholic Church’ to counter the Scriptural principle of Sola Scriptura upheld by the Protestant Reformation It is little wonder that God has (yet again) given His church over to the Fool into apostasy…
But everyone who is saved has given up their free will, for the will of God, and everyone who is willful is not saved, so I'm not sure any of this matters.
I reject autonomy as unbiblical, but I believe the bible may support a form of libertarian free will which refines Calvinist determinism to allow for a loving relationship in which love compels but does not force the will
@@KalebMarshallDulcimerPlayer that’s a good point, I think the word impel or urge might be better, but it’s important to acknowledge God enables this but does not solely determine the persons choice
@@wezzers84 How do you separate autonomy from libertarian theories of free will? I think they are intertwined. I would argue that the Biblical position that we are slaves (whether slaves to sin and Satan or righteousness and Christ) refutes all libertarian theories. But "Libertarian Free Will" is only one set of philosophical theories about free will, there are still plenty of compatiblist theories of free will that don't obviously contradict the Bible. Reformed Christians have always confessed free will while rejected "libertarian" philosophy of the will. Westminster Confession chapter 9 gives a good overview of the Reformed position.
God does not have a problem with free will . If he did, he wouldn’t have given it to us. I understand how intelligent and respected Dr. White is, but there are plenty of examples in humanity to show us that we can be gravely wrong on a subject, despite being able to eloquently defend our position.
You have presupposed that free will (as most people would typically describe "libertarian free will") exists without actually grounding that statement with Scripture.
Jeremiah 19:5 "They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:"
Don't be fooled by this man. He holds his own philosophy over the clear teaching of scripture. James and many Christians arguing from this perspective try to assume far more about God's Omni attributes and how they work, when in reality we don't have the insight from scripture to make such claims. God implies and speaks to man and judges man as freewilled beings who have true choices to make and be held accountable for, James' presuppositions on God's powers do not align with what scripture teaches
Free will in the sense that we make choices, yes. But the choices you make depend on your nature. Is a wolf free to choose between eating meat and a carrot? Yes. But the wolf will choose according to his nature, the meat. Likewise, a rabbit will choose the carrot. Sinners make choices by their state of nature. Every choice they make, even ones that happen to be objectively "good" are made in a nature of rebellion against God.
@@Cinnamonbuns13 that's a non scriptural claim and you have no way of demonstrating that to be true, and our individual experience of "will power" dismisses any reason to believe your claim that our free will is strictly bound by our nature
the enlightened man struggles with that the ancients understood in God’s perspicacious revelation. Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. - Psalm 139:16 Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight, So that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge. - Psalm 51:4
All reformed people accept the idea of double predestination, because it is plainly taught in Scripture (Rom. 9:22-23). There is a distinction made here though: God is active in creating salvific faith in the elect that he predestined to salvation, but he is passive in the hardening of the hearts of the reprobate, meaning He lets the wicked go their own way, though they cannot resist / transgress the bounds His eternal purpose.
@@gospelcenteredministries7876 that’s news to me. Why the big debate about hyper vs non-hyper? Also, how in the world is God not culpable for sin if man “cannot” resist? I consider myself reformed but I would never argue that man “cannot” do good or even receive Christ, it’s that he WILL not. If that distinction is not made then you are indeed arguing that man is not responsible for his sins and that is as unscriptural as it gets.
@@zacharybeauford2244 Gospel Centered Ministries correctly describes "double predestination". What many non-Calvinists think of as "double predestination" is really called equal ultimacy. For both "Single" and "Double" predestination, humans are already condemned sinners fully and justly deserving all of God's wrath, and out of those God choose some to be saved. The Reformed position is "double" because in passing over the reprobate, they will receive their judgement, whereas "single" leaves open the possibility of God coming back and saving those he passed over before. In either case, there is asymmetry in God's action: the reprobate are passed over, but God actively works to save the elect. Equal ultimacy is different. Instead of being about God pardoning sinners, man is morally neutral and God is deciding whether each individual will be reprobate or a saint. Here there is a symmetry where God does similar work to actively save or condemn each person. Where this touches the hyper debate is that hyper-calvinists usually (almost always? always?) hold to equal ultimacy, whereas Reformed Christians hold to double (and occasionally, single) predestination.
@@oracleoftroy I would have to disagree with both of you. The definition he gave of double predestination is not the classical definition. Double predestination is the notion that in the same way that God actively brings about the salvation of some He also actively brings about the damnation of others.
@@oracleoftroy I would have to disagree with both of you. The definition he gave is not the classical definition of double predestination. Double predestination is the notion that in the same way God actively brings about the salvation of some He also actively brings about the damnation of others, hence the word “double”.
@@Jemoh66 There is NO such thing as middle knowledge with The Eternal God. The Lord doesn't just know what is going to happen tomorrow...He's already there. As far as Molina and Calvin are concerned, stop following men and start following Jesus.
If God "made me" this way, why am I being punished for sinning? Because I was born into sin and was enslaved to it? But then I'd have no way to be saved. If God "made us" this way rather than being autonomous, did God create Satan to be evil?
15:20 God is not limited since he can CREATE John Smith or not. And he CAN or NOT create an unlimited NUMBER of possible beings. Here again, it is the Determinist that limits GOD's omniscience to uphold a MUCH lower view of God.
Based on these definitions, I would also not hold to middle knowledge. (For what it’s worth, I am a Calvinist.) However, not everyone uses these definitions of middle knowledge. Thomists, for example, would differ with these definitions.
Putting God in the category of mankind? I mean isn’t that literally the reason his revelation came through mankind, so that we could relate to it? Isn’t the Bible another form of God coming down to make relation with us and to help us to understand him more? In the same way Jesus coming was to save provide a way back to God, but also to relate to us in humanity?
Also your reasoning is very circular, you assume your position is correct to falsify a counter position to yours. You assume Gods eternal decree (determined everything that will happen) to then say that Gods middle knowledge has to come before he determined everything that will happen. All I can think is circular reasoning, and gobbledygook listening to this. It’s not an honest rebuttal and I’m not even a Molinist but I understand it better than what you just described.
@2:25 I disagree with Dr Whites assessment of philosophy. On one hand he seems to believe that theology is devoid of philosophy. Why else would you make the criticism he makes? But the bigger flaw of Whites understanding of philosophy is ignoring the fact that philosophy is a discipline in thinking rationally and logically about things. If a philosopher comes to a conclusion concerning Gods being or the three persons and the Trinities unity based on a statement like “the Lord our God is one,” that may be a human category, but it’s a category that is true. But go beyond that for a moment. You cannot read Bahnsen or Van Till without understanding that philosophical categories are unavoidable.
What helps me is to remember that slaves have no will of their own. Certainly not slaves that worship their chains. The last thing we should want is for God to not intervene or toy with our free will. For without God overcoming what we want we would gladly march into hell.
So, who caused the fall? The very same fall that causes marching into hell? Who gave Satan the inclination to tempt Eve?
I believe (because scripture teaches it) that God determined that there be sin yet without himself sinning. He did so to show sinners who love their sin how good and gracious and holy he is in comparison to sin. Greatest of all was his plan from before time began to die for sinners covered in their sin under his own wrath against sin.
If you can’t stomach this, it is likely you have a disproportionate view of self and God in terms of holiness and utter depravity.
@@Descriptor_ Poisoning the well is a childish thing to do and I resent your attempt at it. Leave it open to yourself that perhaps it can't be stomached because it's preposterous.
God determining that there would be sin still leaves the question unanswered as to who is responsible for it. God can determine that free will creatures can have the ability to sin, and create them knowing what they will do, yet not forcing them in either direction. Thereby leaving the blame solely on the agent that acts, namely Adam and Eve, and not God.
However, the rejection of free will leaves only God as the author of sin. He puppeteers Satan to "tempt" Eve (a bit redundant given the circumstances in this scenario) who he then puppeteers to fall to said temptation. Neither Eve nor Satan had any say in this, mind you, they are merely along for the ride.
The results of this puppeteering are unthinkable. The march into hell by countless sorry souls is caused by only God, being that he is the only agent in existence with any meaningful will. He alone courses their wills, thoughts, actions and destiny.
If a father caused his son to steal and then punished him for stealing, we'd call that child abuse and prosecute the father. If a good earthly father would not do such a thing, think how much more removed such acts would be from a good and holy God.
@@KevinSmile How do you understand Joseph telling his brothers that what they meant for evil, God meant for good?
@@KevinSmile Also, do you affirm Acts 2:23 as the word of God that Jesus was offered up and crucified according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God?
Would you tell God he is a bad father?
“God knows what Sauls gonna do because God knows all time & because.. God made Saul.”
I love it. It really is so obvious, when you acknowledge that it’s all about God & Him glorifying Himself.
@@hardpl8368 indeed. How does HE 'Know'; cause HE Carries all things along to their intended destination, accomplishing all that HE Pleases!!-) Amen. Do, please, remember that GOD Is TRIUNE; so, if GOD Were 'me, me, ME', being selfish would be a Godly virtue. However, The FATHER Points to The SON, as does The SPIRIT as "the Unique GOD" and The SON Points to The FATHER, by that Same SPIRIT -TRIUNE GLORY!!-)
@@CHRISTSlave7So you praise God for child trafficking, abortions, devil worship, etc??? And you think that is honouring to God?
So, because God made Saul tall, He made him prideful and disobedient? Is that what Dr. White saying?
@@CHRISTSlave7 This is why there is no gospel in Reformed Theology...
I think the problem with all of this is that man thinks God has an obligation to save everybody, or give everybody a chance to be saved, and they think that salvation comes about how man respond to God. It's all about man, and therefore a false gospel. God can save whoever he wants and whenever he wants.
Greetings. I Worship A Righteous, Holy, Loving, Just, Merciful God who died for the sins of every creature 1 John 2:2. My God will never damn any oerson to hell to show His sovereign power. God bless you.
Yes, but who gave us our will?
@normmcinnis4102
_"Who gave us our will?"_
A: God made man in His own image, meaning that innately, God's law is imprinted on the invisible fabric of man's inner being. God gave man sentience; an ability to know and make decisions, based on revealed knowledge. Before the fall man is limited in knowledge and understanding because there is no comprehension of what the consequence of disobedience is, other than what God decrees -"you shall surely die".
God gave us our nature, and with that nature an ability to choose but not an ability to foresee; foreseeing belongs only to God. Also, man is created finite, and, unlike God, the only being who is incapable of change, and incapable of doing anything other than who His character and nature is, man is susceptible to temptation. This means that man was both incapable of having the wisdom and incapable of having the power (God's immutable nature) to resist Satan.
It is only because of our union with God, through Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit, that we are able to overcome Satan and endure til the end. This is because God's word and nature is unchanging; union with Him is sealed; His word leaves His mouth and does not return to Him empty, accomplishing all that He has decreed, as Jeremiah says. This is why we have assurance of salvation and victory over Satan; to be known by, called and chosen by, and held in the hands by God's immutable Word, we have full assurance that God will complete His work. We have a gift that Adam and Eve did not have, and that gift strengthens us in our weakness and gives wisdom to us to overcome the lies and cunning of the Tempter.
@normmcinnis4102
P.S. I'm not a Calvinist either. I'm a charismatic continuationist who simply stumbled upon a reformed soteriology after reading through the Bible in 5 months repeatedly, Genesis to Revelation, in attempt to prove my brother wrong about his Calvinism. So my understanding is simply from seeing the revealed truths about God and discovering the harmonious theological thread, and realising that predestination and free will is all about God the Father predestining the Son to be appointed as King over creation, freely giving Him to unwilling slaves and rebels as a ransom and propitiation, and the Son, in perfect union with the Divine will of the Father, freely laying His life down for a whiring Bride that was enslaved to another husband (Romans 7 heart of stone) before she got Ezekiel 36'd with a heart of flesh, able to now dwell in the reconciliation of Romans 5, free from the slavery of Romans 6 and able to walk freely in Romans 8, because she was Roman 9'd and Ephesians 1-2'd before the foundations of the world, not by human will or effort but by the God who calls and elects out of His free will.
@@Bonaparte3922 What does it mean then that God hated Esau?
Dr. White is correct. There is one reason and one reason only that Molina ever thought this theological mess up: to protect the assumption of man's "free will", when such a concept is unknown throughout Scripture. Instead we find that all who are in sin are enslaved to sin (dead in their trespasses and sin, we are like the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel 37 which are utterly without life unless God gives us life, and naturally hostile towards God in our natural state) and that those who have been saved by the grace of God are now slaves to righteousness. In either case slaves, which by definition are not free.
Actually, if you read Molina's writing, you'll find that he arrived at his view because he thought it's what best explained the Scriptural data. I recommend Alfred Freddoso's translation if the Concordia.
So if you're a slave to righteousness are you now perfectly obeying God?
Ezekiel 37 in its own context does not support Reformed theology (I.e. just like every other passage).
@@dandeliontea7 To your first question: Of course not. Does a slave always perfectly do the will of their master? No, unless you are Christ Jesus. But the difference is that you stopped loving your old master (sin, the flesh, Satan) and now love your new Master. So while we may not be in perfect obedience to Him, your desire is now to do your best for Him. If you think I am wrong in my analysis, I would love for you to justify your position of what being a "slave to righteousness" is.
As to your statement: What is the context of Ezekiel 37? What is the purpose of what God shows Ezekiel in the valley of dry bones? Was it just so that Ezekiel could share some random vision? It can be taken in two ways. The first points to the final resurrection of all, both believers and unbelievers, for the judgment and eternal life/death. God is showing His power to bring clearly dead people back to life. The second way it can be interpreted is that, as is said in the 11th verse, the bones are from the whole house of Israel (I'm sure Ezekiel took this as meaning physical Israel, but this also has a double meaning of the called, since Paul makes it clear "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel". So this is talking about both the saved in physical Israel and future Israel, including the Gentiles). In the verse, the bones are saying that they are dried up and that their hope has perished, that they are cut off (i.e. dead). Further on in verse 14, God says "I will put My Spirit within you and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the LORD, have spoken and done it". So summing up those verses, it sounds like 1) the bones represent dead people (sinners) 2) God calls the pile of bones the whole house of Israel (His chosen people, the elect) 3) God resurrects them to life (being born again) and 4) God gives them the Holy Spirit. I believe that due to the context of the passage, the answer is that both ways make sense. Your move.
Wrong. God doesn't need a decree to have perfect knowledge. Having all knowledge is part of his NATURE, not a decree. On Calvinism, God knows nothing without the decree.
@@jessetoler8171No that is a strawmab
I really appreciate Dr. White and have listened to him for over 2 years now. However, seeing him in Professor White mode and hearing a lecture from him is really great. I am glad that y'all are accentuating this aspect of him for our benefit. Thank you! Good job, Rich! ;-)
@ONLINE INTELECTUAL 😂😂😂🤡
@ONLINE INTELECTUAL Just what am I supposed to do with 72 virgins?
I am not a Calvinist but all of my favorite pastors/ preachers are. I am certain of Christ’s divinity, god’s sovereignty, and human free will. The seeming contradiction between the latter two I am uncertain of any reconciliation for, but I believe their is one and am eager to better understand.
There is no contradiction. If God is fully sovereign, like Calvinists claim, He can choose when to and when not to exercise His power and authority. He HAS the power, authority, and ability to control all of human actions and behaviors, but that doesn't mean He HAS to do that all the time. IF God is really sovereign, then He has the power and authority to allow us to have certain choices to make.
Just read up on Compatibilism.
I was in a similar boat one year ago. I’m now a fully convinced Calvinist. “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.” “No one knows the Father but the Son, and him to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”
What can turn a God-hater into a God-worshipper? What can cause a man to believe what he hears? What can cause a corpse to breathe? Only the Lord, Hallelujah!
Try Ligonier
I know this comment is old, but I will say there is no conflict between God’s sovereignty and human free will.
There is only conflict if you believe in *libertarian* free will, which I think is logically impossible (it makes less sense the more you think about it).
The free will Calvinists believe in is that we are free to act according to our own wills. In fact, we can *only* act based on our strongest will or inclination at the moment (not to be confused with acting on our most animalistic desires… we can certainly will ourselves to avoid that).
Basically, God created us to be who we are, and we can only act based on who we are (our wills). Since our will is naturally corrupt, we cannot objectively choose and understand God, unless the Holy Spirit first changes our will, saving us and leading us to Him.
The difficulty I always have is God's Sovereign Decree + not being the author of sin. It's hard to reconcile that God is totally Sovereign and in complete control and we are the clay He is the Potter, yet simultaneously all sins and offenses against God are our own fault and on our own choice that He did not author.
This right here! Thank you!
I remember an example given by RC Sproul that I undoubtedly will butcher, but the basics of it were: Adam witnesses a ditch and jumps into it and dies in the ditch. He couldn’t get out even if he tried because he’s dead; if God raised him he still would need God to climb out because it’s far too deep of a ditch. So God gives us the ability (bringing to spiritual life) and the means (giving us the ability to obey) and He brings us back into His presence. Difficult for sure to encapsulate the grandeur of the divine, and again I certainly butchered it using thumbs to type, but I hope that conveys a bit more.
We hold responsibility because we were born into sin. You mentioned being molded like clay, and I think this is well put and biblical; we are clay in the hands of the potter, with no standing at all to question His decisions or moves made.
@@bassistguy13
Amen
It is possible, take it this way, when we angered, most of the time out of anger we sin but scriptures says that when God angered, God does not sin.
Scriptures and confessions is clear about God is not the author of evil and does not sin, neither does God tempts anyone. (James 1:13), (WCF 3.1)
When God decree or permits evil, it is not out of evil intentions because God is holy, if God is holy, then God decree or permits evil to bring greater good out of the evil that we human do. God often permits evil through second agency to bring greater good.
for instance in Genesis 50:20:
"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today."
@@DillonJan
Preach it!
“If you can’t say amen you oughta say ouch!” - Voddie Baucham
I watched the debate between Dr. White and Dr. Craig, and both men explained their positions really well. But Dr. White won on this point. He convinced me of Calvinism rather than Molinism, which I had been considering.
I'm Calvinistic but Craig's view is the only form of non calvinism I can stomach.
Up until 7:40 James White was demonstrating a decent understanding of the Molinist thesis…the fact that he says at that time the middle knowledge doctrine is just for man is where is ignorance comes in…it is an important doctrine for free will, but it’s also important for God, cos without the concept of Middle Knowledge, God would have no providential planning of a world he wished to create…it would just be all possibilities of “coulds”, and after he selected which world to create it would just be a roll of the dice.
Dr. James White, wonderful job explaining how middle knowledge is wishful thinking.
It seems to me that the biggest issue people face with a system of theology like Calvinism is that there is a mystery about how a holy God meets sinful man. Man is responsible for sin, God is responsible for salvation. How does that work? I have no idea how, but I am also not bothered by that because I don't/won't/can't ever know the mind of God, outside what He's given to us in His word, and how He solves that dilemma. I just know when I read the Bible I am told I am dead in my sins and trespasses, completely unable to come to God on my own power, and yet simultaneously told to have faith and to pick up my cross and follow Him. Even after regeneration I must follow and bear fruit. I'm willing to say, its a mystery to me, but completely formed and known in the mind of God.
based
Love the teaching!
God does not answer to man. Man answers to God! There is no in-between!
Thanks you! God calls his elect by the power of the Holy Spirit according to his plan and purpose. I’m guessing you’re seeking salvation. If so, then He has already touched your heart and is “drawing” you to Jesus.
No need for the " "
Poor old John Smith has done a lot of things over the years.
The problem with Middle Knowledge is that it is not derived from a careful study of Scripture, but from philosophy alone.
If you read Molina himself, you'll find that he arrived at the concept of middle knowledge because he thought it was the best explanation of the biblical data on divine sovereignty and human freedom/responsibility. I recommend Alfred Freddoso's English translation of The Concordia. Also, as Romans 1:19-20 makes clear, analyzing Scripture is not the only way to arrive at true beliefs about God.
@@nosyt42
A man thinks that he can arrive at truth about God without God.
Go figure.
Funny that the only scripture White refers to in this clip is a verse that implies middle knowledge. It seems like he is the one relying on philosophy alone.
@@nosyt42 No christian denies we have knowledge of God from creation, that is irrelevant to Molinism. The question is about the formulation of a doctrine. There are no verses that teach that God uses "Middle Knowledge" to make decisions. I can admit that it could possibly be true (and is orthodox), but it is simply absent from Scripture.
White just assumes what God's abilities and constraints are. Why can't God create something truly free willed? This is all vain philosophy as the bible warns us to avoid.
Thank you so so much!
I can't find the full length vid of this talk
This concept is addressed in Acts 17. It tells us that God sets up nations (and their peoples) in the place and time of history that gives everyone the best chance they could have at obeying him. I often ponder if that means peoples that never had the chance to ever know God’s word whatsoever (such as remote tribes deep in Congo) were souls that would have rejected God no matter what anyway.
This doesn’t teach predestination, only that God is outside time and knows the decisions we will make for ourself - even before we are born.
Can one be unhappy with God's decree for one's life?
Is there a good critique of middle knowledge in book form?
The Bible.
Calvinists & Molinists scholars debated it in "Calvinism and Middle Knowledge: A Conversation" (eds. John Laing, Kirk MacGregor, Greg Welty)
@@douglasmcnay644 lol
@@douglasmcnay644 Bible hates Calvinist god
Maybe you should reread the Bible (or more likely for the first time).
I like that "Who made Saul tall?"
Who made saul fall?
Correct , exact , truthful theology . This is why I love this man . It took me many years in my sanctification to learn this and I just learned it within the past couple years and now I hear it being talked about by someone else way more learned than myself to confirm it . I would say that’s the holy spiritual in action !
Hmmm.....
I'm a bit confused on this one.
Certainly, God is timeless. In that regard, there is a chronological point at which creation came to be. Certainly, God knew what he was going to create and everything about what was going to transpire in his creation before he created it (because He Himself is timeless and all-knowing). Is this not true?
Is this the same thing as "middle knowledge" or is this a different concept entirely? I think what I've written above is logically consistent and is backed up by Scripture, however I am confused in terms of it's relationship to "middle knowledge".
I don't know. I believe that God is the ultimate authority in all things.
Indeed. Sometimes, men try to reason with their own logic which is a far shot from God's logic and knowledge. God knows EVERYTHING, before, now and forever.
Yes, middle knowledge is the knowledge God has about all and any world which he could create. This is a hypothetical knowledge.. i.e knowledge of things that would happen if God created a particular type of world.
No, that's not true; on Reformed Theology *EVERYTHING THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IS GOING TO HAPPEN because THE CALVINIST GOD IS GOING TO cause IT TO HAPPEN!*
I appreciate your comments, but I think it has only further confused me. I think I'm going to look to email Dr. James White and try to get a clearer sense of things.
By the way, I consider myself "Calvinist" in my doctrine; That is to say that I follow The Bible, but in doing so many of the ideas that are called "Calvinist" seem to be supported by The Bible. I therefore believe those ideas.
@@hwilliampolenz6713
I suggest you look at original sources to understand different positions.. or atleast learn each position from someone who follows it and is an authority.
William lane Craig is a good source to Understand Molonism.
Someone like Roger Olson is a good source to understand Arminianism.
As to Calvinism being biblical. It's not biblical in my opinion. For example limited atonement which teaches that Jesus died only for the elect is clearly unbiblical. I have observed that Calvinists often misrepresent competing positions.
HOW FREE WILL WORKS: we have two natures: the mind and the heart, or Self. The mind observes and judges the heart, either correctly or incorrectly, either with knowledge, (conscience) or against it… God observes our inner, hidden lives, and enables us to overcome that which we correctly judge as wrong or harmful about ourselves, and at some point, gives us the revelation of His Son and a better judge, the mind of Christ 😇
Not biblical at all. Nice.
Mahalo (thank you) for another one of your wonderful teachings. Sorry, but I still don’t quite get it and may never get it. God is absolutely sovereign in all things and I don’t need to know how 😄
I didn’t have time to watch this video but is he saying that an unsaved person like me can never make the right choice? Why won’t God choose me for salvation? I was never popular
John 6:37:
³⁷ All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.@@AmberDennis001
It's there's a difference between Molinism and Pelagianism?
So most Molinists aren’t pelagian in their anthropology. Some may be. But the majority hold to original sin/guilt.
And indeed God cannot create a world where everyone is saved without also eliminating the possibility of things like perseverance patience gratitude selflessness etc. because these things require adversity to exist and adversity requires bad agents.
A great rebuttal of Molinism. The concept of Free Will has been a controversial one down through the centuries. The one that appeals to me is that Mankind has Free Will, but only within limits. That covers all bases I hear you say. Well I believe in the Sovereignty of God, and that is biblical, but Man's free will does not override the Sovereignty of God. Otherwise man would be God. And here lies the problem.
we can think of it this way as well... Man is Not privy to the Counsel of God.. this is concerning all of God's decisions and why.... for example JOB..... JOB had No idea.. that God was holding him up to Satan as an example of a righteous man.. and God fearing.. but God knew....God's counsels are not made known to man.but we are the recipients of His decisions......
What he has revealed you can know. Joseph knew later, not as it happened to him, that God meant it for good while his brothers meant it for evil against him. So, if it's something in His Word that He has revealed to us then we can know it. If it's something that he has not revealed, then we won't & can't know it.
My question is did God have knowledge of what he could freely decree before he decreed to create? It seems like if He doesn't then it's a sort of blind decree in my mind.
His knowledge is his decree. What he brought into excistance is what he thought
I would agree with Dustin and also point out that the question assumes that God resides in space and time. He does not. Before decreeing to create there was no time and so it doesn’t make sense to try to set this in a chronological order.
@@Jmachadao92 Space and Time? God is time, time is an attribute of time, has anyone thought of that…
@@Jmachadao92 Not that I disagree with your or Dustin (I agree with your answers), but in defense of Ryan's great question, it's a bit hard to speak of timeless God in human languages as they presume time. But "Before" can refer to chronologically prior or logically prior, and the question (and answers) make sense if we assume the best and consider it in light of the timelessness of God. There is no need to assume chronology with "before".
I love you James but what is with all the black it looks so dark
I'm not a Molinist. The hypocrisy of the Calvinist to call out Molinists for their middle knowledge because it's not in the bible is made clear by their embracing ALL actions being predestined which also is not in the bible. It's doubly hypocritical in light of the FACT that believers from Acts to Augustine promoted free will and it was Augustine who introduced "Calvinistic" predestination into the church from his stoic past.... which most Calvinists are either ignorant of or plug their ears when told this.
The “Augustine used to be a gnostic” argument is one we’ve all heard. We just don’t but any stock into it because it doesn’t matter what he used to be. We all used to be something, praise God we’re not anymore. To claim Augustine taught what he did because if what he used to be is disingenuous. It’s also ironic when you consider that many if the anti-Calvinist who make this point also make a big deal about how they used to be Calvinist.
Only God is autonomous.
That would make God the author of sin. You can't have a world with one autonomous being in which there are also beings who do things that being doesn't want them to do.
By proxy, I suppose? This is the universe he chose to create and chose to redeem. His plans were the same before he ever uttered a word in creation. He knew his creation would turn away from him and he already had a plan for salvation. Technically no matter how you look at it, God is the author of sin, as he is the arbiter of what defines sin and the author of the law which showed us our sin. If he was a nicer God, he'd have less strict standards for sin. Your argument is moot.
There is no problem with free will if properly understood.
Yup. Westminster Confession chapter 9 has a nice overview of Biblical free will.
@@oracleoftroy I prefer Thomas Helweys 1611 Confession
I'm no genius, but poor humble me can't understand how, the myriads of Bible verses notwithstanding to the contrary ( man slave to sin, blind, dead in trespassing, hostile to God, etc.), people still insist that men have free will. To believe that is proof that they're slaves to sin, blund, dead in trespasses, hostile to God, etc.
"Free will" per se isn't the issue. It's specifically _Libertarian_ theories of free will that deny what scripture describes as the state of our will as being enslaved to sin, etc. The "free will denying Calvinists" have always confessed that man has a free will, philosophically speaking, but describe it in terms that would deny libertarian philosophies and affirm a compatibilist philosophy.
But I think if someone doesn't feel comfortable speaking philosophically at all, I wouldn't even use the term "free will" at all, not to affirm it or deny it. Avoid philosophical jargon entirely and just stick to scripture's description of man's will. It doesn't paint the picture most anti-Calvinists want to believe in.
Heres an example of middle knowledge limiting God about which worlds he can create: you can't create patience and perseverance without the existence of adversity and trials. You can't create gratitude without also creating poverty.
Hmmm...So you're saying this whole mess we're in is for Gratitude? What about Spiritual beings then? I haven't watched the video yet, I have had thoughts about not being able to truly Love Truth without Free Will.
How is that specifically an example of Middle Knowledge? One doesn't have to affirm Middle Knowledge to agree with it.
"How can God know?"
Easily with infinite wisdom and knowledge
Middle knowledge is what God knows. He wouldn't be constrained to decree anything based off knowledge alone. I'm no molinist but your argument is full of holes.
Can someone explain to me why God being infinite in knowledge and power cannot create a universe where he is completely sovereign and humans have free will?
No. *Omniscience* is all that God knows. That is not "middle knowledge". Your "middle knowledge" informed God to make His best decision for His best decree. But God was only "constrained" (to use your word) by His own attributes (Himself), Omniscience being one of them, and all of them together to decree what we reveal and experience. See "The Existence and Attributes of God" by Charnock.
@@playeromaximo4382 middle knowledge isn't God's knowledge?
The thing here, is he thinks middle knowledge has a buffer time for God to exhaust before he does anything.
It is not a steelman but a strawman. Maybe, middle knowledge doesn't have to have any "lag time" at all. Maybe God doesn't even need to process it, and instead simply knows it like everything else. It is not a hard concept.
Saying God knows xyz could happen is not the same as saying God doesn't know already xyz could or will happen. He isn't learning anything with middle knowledge. Sheesh.
It is simply the ability to know the many ins and outs of literally anything that could happen inside of time. An all knowing God must have that knowledge, or he lacks one of the most powerful abilities we can know him to have. Like a super computer with infinite potential, and calculations that are instant or rather . . . everything stored in memory with an unlimited capacity.
@@ip7101 that's how I understand it.
Free Will is not the problem but Libertarian Free Will is. Libertarianism will eventually entails to Fatalism but not Determinism, Fatalism is aberrant from Determinism.
Compatibilism affirms the compatibility of freedom and responsibility with determinism and it is consistent with scriptures.
Just because Libertarian Free Will is convenient for apologetics doesn't mean that it is biblical, i rather be wrong if my wrong is right with God.
The idea that god knowledge is limited by middle knowledge is like saying God is limited because he cannot make a square circle, it doesn’t limit God if creation has properties than are limited and derived from logical truths
@Original O.G. Troll You're claiming God isn't Omnipotent. Your statement is saying God needs to take in new information as it comes in that he doesn't know about. Very dangerous.
@Original O.G. Troll God knows the future because he created it. It's already a created thing to him. Time is a creation of God.
@Original O.G. Troll ruclips.net/video/2_ciGCkgKH8/видео.html
@Original O.G. Troll you have to be trolling. O.G.
Trying to figure this out. To decree something don't you have to have an idea of it before you decree it? Shouldn't God have an idea of us before He decrees us? Help
Hes not talking about his beliefs but heresy. Sorry I'm so late.
Regardless of the labels or position and opinions expressed. I had zero will and hope.. When at my worst.. Christ Jesus was at his best. Jesus initiated my eagerness to accept his gifts and calling. Repentance wasn't required. Accepting his invitation on limited options or out of options...Gods will.Free will Is an illusion. We are slave's to the Law agree it is Rightous..Somehow this also .gives life to the Sinful Nature and its These 3 thing's remainFaith,Hope and Love Love the greater of them. The Lord Giveth and the Lord taketh away..He will bless whom he will bless. Curse whom he will curse. Free will leads to death. Surrendered will to Christ Jesus life. ❤
Free will is just another way of saying work based salvation.
Coming out of JWs teaching it’s clear to me that free will is man wanting to have the power over salvation same as deeds based salvation.
Scriptures teach God decides who he saves not man. If God is good and his wisdom higher than ours than him deciding who he saves is a good thing
@schmaingd What does the Calvinist say sin is? The Biblical definition of sin is missing the mark. Not doing God's will. How can there be sin if God is CAUSING everything to happen? What is sin if EVERYTHING that happens, ONLY happens because GOD CAUSES it to happen? Also, how can there be obedience if EVERTHING ONLY happens because, AGAIN, God causes all to happen, even "obedience" to God's commands? What about verses like Joshua 24:15, "... CHOOSE for yourselves this day whom you will serve..." AND, You'll NEVER convince me that, as hyper Calvinists believe, God causes EVERYTHING to happen, even murder, rape, child molestation, LGBTQ lifestyles, anti-Christ religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, atheism etc. Also, here is ABSOLUTE Biblical proof that God does NOT cause everything to happen:
In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, "People built high places to sacrifice their children (in fire) to foreign gods, and He (God) says, "I did NOT COMMAND this, nor did it enter my mind."
I praise God that you came out of the JWs. I hope you find true freedom in Christ.
I will disagree that free will is a works based salvation. Paul specifically contrasts works and belief in Romans 4:5. For Paul, "works based salvation" is salvation that is sought through obedience to the Law of Moses. But faith isn't like that. It isn't a work. This is what Romans 4 teaches.
You can humbly believe in God, and nowhere does the Bible call that a work.
I don't agree with Dr. White on this point, but I just wanted to say - can I PLEASE get me one of these boards!?!?!?
On which point
@@Charles.Wright I’m a molinist and I found some of the issues to be misrepresentative.
@@TheChurchSplit Which ones?
Doesn’t Molinism teach that God has chosen the best of all possible worlds?
@@pinknoise365 molinists disagree on this. But I’d say yes.
@@TheChurchSplit Then the future is chosen for us.
Isn’t the problem with free will that we do it - and we ought not? (John 6:38)
Exactly! Its funny that when the anti-Calvinist speaks of free will, it sounds like they are talking about saving themselves through their own free will choice. But as I read scripture, it was my free will that got me into trouble, and now I need something outside myself to save me. I don't want more of my sinful free will to condemn me, I want God's will to extend grace to me, a sinner.
@@oracleoftroy
Wow, sounds like pnuma and pur (Rom 8:28) is busy! “Is not my word like as a fire? Saith the Lord” (Jer 23:29).
The problem of free will is that it doesn't fit into calvinism. That's it. Calvinists create a bunch of false dichotomies to argue in defense of determinism. Quite absurd imo
Weird given that all the Reformed confessions affirm free will being perfectly compatible with a creator God who made all things.
So what is the right understanding? No point posturing about how wrong you think the other guy is if you can't even get an alternative off the ground.
@@oracleoftroyour God is so powerful that He knows what we will do. We have 100% free will and somehow God’s will is always done. God cannot be the author of sin> therefore we have to have free will
There's no problem with True Free Will -which The CREATOR Alone Possesses. You can do Nothing without ME
@@jacoblayman2033you do have free will. You just freely will to sin and choose evil and love darkness as opposed to Him until he opened your heart. The scriptures are crystal clear, lol. I don’t see what the big deal is.
The problem with free will is that it’s not a biblical concept.
It should be noted that any reference to Molinism having its origin with a Jesuit during the Counter-Reformation as some sort of point against its validity is guilty of the genetic fallacy. A view is not invalidated because of where or when it originated.
Molinism is false because it goes against the Bible.
“remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, 👉declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and 👉I will accomplish all my purpose,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and 👉I will bring it to pass; 👉I have purposed, and 👉I will do it. “Listen to me, you stubborn of heart, you who are far from righteousness:”
Isaiah 46:9-12 ESV
☝️
Yup. It's helpful to know the origins and intention of the theory, but ultimately that proves nothing. Fortunately White didn't act like the anti-Calvinists who think merely pointing out that Augustine used to be a Gnostic is somehow an argument against Calvinism, but actually went on to give more direct evidence for why middle knowledge is problematic.
@@shopson6991 How exactly does Molinism go against this passage?
@@shopson6991 why think that because God brings something to pass, that that would necessarily mean God could not have accomplished it without violating a persons free will? I could be missing your point, but that is what I’m getting from your comment.
14:11 that is a metaphysical assertion. I see no reason to accept that SINCE if I WERE to accept that premise then as you said, it COSTS me my responsibility for my actions. It also makes GOD unjust for punishing Evil and therefore makes GOD unloving. I therefore reject a metaphysic which Makes God things contrary to what He says He is. At this point, DETERMINISM is no longer Biblical since it posits that there is no ME or CHOICE that I can truly make.
Freewill. What does it mean? Does it mean freedom to will absolutely anything that I might think? I can freely think of sprouting wings and flying like a bird. However, I am not free to "will" to do it. Why? Because it is not in my nature to fly like a bird. So, freewill has no meaning in that scenario because "will" is subordinate to "nature". In other words, the will is a 2nd order thing governed by nature.
This is how I think of freewill. I am free to will anything that is within the confines of my nature. What are the implications of this state of nature? Let me run a couple of questions by you. The first question is: Am I free to please God? Can I, on the exercise of my will, please God while in an unregenerate state of nature? The simple answer to this question is, no. "Without faith it is impossible to please God." The next question is: Does the natural man possess faith? Not apart from the saving work of Jesus Christ. Hebrews 12:2 tells us that Jesus is the originator and perfecter of faith. Think of that. He is both the source and effective power of faith. There is no faith -- saving faith -- apart from Jesus Christ. When does He impart saving faith? I think that answer is at the time of new birth -- the receiving point of the new nature. Upon receipt of the new nature -- becoming a partaker of the Divine nature (2 Pet1:4) -- the new believer can now answer my first question in the affirmative. His will now has freedom that is unconstrained by the old nature which is "without strength" (Rom 5:6). Paul says something on this in his 1st letter to Corinth in chapter 2:14. "The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit because they are foolishness to him and neither can he know them." In other words, the unregenerate man does not want to know spiritual things; further, he lacks the capacity to know spiritual things. We clearly see that the natural man's will is subordinate to his nature. His nature finds spiritual things a foolish pursuit and his nature lacks the capacity to discern spiritual things so the outcome is already determined. His will, consistent and subordinate to his nature, freely rejects spiritual things as foolish. So, back to the beginning. Freewill is there; however, it is constrained by state of nature.
@@Saratogan Free will, in the libertarian sense, means the ability to choose such antecedent conditions are insufficient to causally determine one's choice.
@@nosyt42 , I am having some difficulty making sense of your definition of freewill. It seems to be missing a conjunction "that" after ""such". Have I got that correct? If so, can I ask you a question based on my alteration of your definition? If antecedent conditions are insufficient what must be added to overcome the insufficiency of those conditions? BTW, I have not yet bought your definition. I'm just trying to think it through. What do you think of the state of nature that the apostle Paul speaks about when it comes to spiritual things? Are you opposed to that statement that he makes?
@@Saratogan Yes, there should be a "that" after "such." According to libertarians, what is missing from the antecedent conditions in a free will choice is the causal input of the agent itself. It is formulated so as to preclude causal determinism, which libertarians generally believe necessitates the effect and obliterates human moral responsibility.
There are different ways to take what Paul says about our natures, including interpreting it as "that which is common to all mankind," which is compatible with all mankind freely choosing to sin. But, in any event, libertarian free will is a causal account of choosing and says nothing of the range of choices available to us. Perhaps sinners only have evil choices available to them, or, even more restrictive, only one choice in any given circumstance. Even so, so long as the choosing itself is not causally determined by antecedent conditions, then sinners have libertarian freedom. I take 1 Corinthians 10:13 to be sufficient to show that at least regenerate Christians do in fact have libertarian freedom.
@@nosyt42, Your comment about how to read Paul as possibly ""that which is common to all mankind" is difficult from the context of 2:14. In Chapter 2, Paul is contrasting the spiritual man with the natural man so the thought of that which is common to all mankind is not possible in context. He is talking about two states of nature. I surmise from your presence on RUclips that you are a Lutheran. If so, I expect that you have read Bondage of The Will. It is quite repetitive but has some nuggets. Luther definitely is on the side of what I have said here.
Where is the "will" resident? I think that I can say without controversy that the "will" is resident in the "mind". Paul speaks of two "minds" in Romans 8 and contrasts them. They are the "mind of the flesh" and the "mind of the Spirit". He says that the mind of the flesh (natural) is death and he says that the mind of the Spirit (spiritual) is life. He also says that the mind of the flesh is enmity against God. So, if the residence of the will is naturally at war with God how is the will free to surrender to God? It is not. It is subordinate to the mind. The mind must be defeated and is done when one passes from death (mind of the flesh) to life (mind of the Spirit) by Divine quickening (Eph 2:5) and then the will is no longer inextricably linked to the mind of the flesh.
To your last point; absolutely. I said that earlier. Regeneration frees the will due to the new nature and therefore pleasing God now becomes a joy (not foolishness) and a very real capacity.
I believe that we have the ability to choose our earthly life as we see fit. We dont have complete free will, where we can do whatever we want, we have a limited amount of freedom, which can be atributed to beig made in gods image. I also believe that God is completely sovereign and knew all of history before the universe was created. I believe that God is able, in his infinielye abilities, to make creatures that are capable of making free choices, while being completely aivereign over everything, and maintaining his character through all of it. Thats how big God is. To me, if you want to reduce God to something smaller you can take 1 or 2 things away. I believe in an infinite God, which cannot be understood by man, so if your argument is that you understand God completely, therefore an argument I make couldnt fit into his character then i think you believe in a much smaller God.
This all just man made philosophy, nothing more. And that’s fine, but don’t call it “biblical theology” or whatever. No one is obligated to believe anything said in this video.
James doesn't what you say mean that God’s omniscience is contingent upon His sovereignty? I thought none of His attributes were contingent on any of the rest of them.
Nope, you couldn’t be more wrong.
God is still the God of His own decree.
The decree does not inform nor direct God.
@@pinknoise365 No but it sounds like he is saying that the reason God knows what will definitely happen is because He decrees it.
@@AndalusianIrish Explain how the decree informs God seeing God has made the decree.
Wouldn’t this be like an author being surprised by his own book?
@@pinknoise365 No, I am saying that it sounds like James is saying that God only knows what happens in the book because He wrote it.
@@pinknoise365 Is White suggesting that God’s attributes/actions are separate from His essence?
13:19 "you and I both know that *so much* of what we do is based upon God's decree." James White can't consistently describe his own theology, let alone anyone else's.
You can't even parse his stelatemeny, let alone understand his theology.
What he said is that we can know intuitively that particular circumstances in our lives are traced directly to God's decree.
He is talking about what we know. He is not saying that some things we do are not based upon God's decrees, just that some are not intuitive.
@@Luiz__Silva well said 🙌🏻
@@Luiz__Silva lol, sure.
@@ChipKempston Great interaction. 😒
@@pinknoise365 you misspelled "accurate"
I'm not a Molonist, but this was an atrocious review by White here. Not only is he (probably deliberately) pretending that there aren't answers to his basic questions on Molonism, but he covers everything with a layer of condescension.
Calling Molonists "followers of Molina"? He himself gets really annoyed when people call him a follower of Calvin because he's a Calvinist, but apparently he can't afford the same charity back.
Thank you brother for the lesson.
His critique of the term middle knowledge also applies to terms natural and free which has been used traditionally but is not biblically expressed in the manner he seems to think middle knowledge should be
Trying to simplify this argument, badly admittedly as I'm new to Theology. 1. God can process and store X# of variables from t=0 to this moment. 2. The amount of variables humans can envision an entity processing and storing is X + Y where Y is a positive number accounting for everything, in heaven (other than Himself) and Earth. 3. God 'knows' the future as demonstrated in prophecy. 4. It is extremely unlikely for God to include in His design a universe with requisite processes, boundaries, limits, or any telemetric instrumentation in His creatures to accomplish every one of His goals in his creation of free willed agents. 5. Human and Elohim (other than the Trinity) free will are an insurmountable obstacle for God to accomplish His goals. 6. God's goals are accomplished. 7. Human free will cannot exist.
Is this the argument presented in this particular snippet plainly stated? I am sure either I am missing something or there are much better arguments propounded elsewhere.
My concern is that God has limited Himself in some ways, we all agree on that. From a deterministic perspective we are starting by limiting His computational power and ascribing every highest good and the most grotesque evil act to Him temporally in exchange for an eternal Glory. Secondary causation seems an absurd patch to those who can't swallow God committing all evil, seems a cowardly position not exegeted from Scripture. Free willers tend to limit God in thinking that EVERYTHING is about them and many believe that their belief in God saves them with cheap Grace. God turns around and poof, "Hey look at the tally board!".
I am leaning toward free will because I would rather think that I am way too self centered (which is forgivable ad it is our natural estate), rather than ascribing every grotesque evil to my Holy God. Read this with your guard down as much as possible if you are courageous enough, these are the verses that haunt me as they are not in Psalms or Proverbs which can proof text anything but historical narrative, in context:
Jeremiah 32:34-36
English Standard Version
34 They set up their abominations in the house that is called by my name, to defile it. 35 They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
How else could He communicate this any more clearly saying there is at least 1 thing He didn't command and at least 1 thing did not come from His mind?
Sovereign looks to those under him /vice versa. I would think if He created us as programmed iPads some with firmware repeating the words "Love you love you love" for eternity and some saying "hate you hate you hate you" He would never use the human concept of Sovereignty as there are no deeper parallels to draw from as human Sovereignty is categorically different. Conjecture: He would have likely used Storytelling or authorship most likely to describe our relationship to Him as characters or some kind of marionette. (I think the potter and clay is a beautiful and strong metaphor in favor of determinism.)
Dr. White agreed that there was no concept of Determinism anywhere in Judaism or Christianity in the early Church until 400+ years A.D. with Augustine. Augustine had already been a determinist for at least a decade in a cult called Manicheanism prior to His convenient conversion to Christianity synchronous with Constantine's declaration of Christianity becoming the state religion. The only prior Deterministic major religions were Eastern (Vedic, Buddhist..) I am open to correction so please feel free to point me to any primary sources I may be missing. I am fully aware of the usual verses such as in Ephesians, Genesis, Romans 9 etc but those have excellent explanations to consistently interpret them from a non-determined, originalist perspective and most demonstrate the opposite conclusion to an uncommitted observer. I am also open because I don't want to commit either the genetic nor negative inference fallacies which I admit I fell into above a bit 🤦
I am still investigating this issue but what I DO know by direct, miraculous revelation is that I believe the Gospel in it's beautiful, Divine simplicity explained in FOUR verses 1 Cor 15:1-4 that we all agree on. I am a convert from the religion of Scientism, for which I've payed dearly with my reputation with other faculty, which is rooted in Determinism so I am taking it slow as I am biased toward it. Statistically we are likely all wrong from God's perspective in so many ways with our espoused propositional Truth claims that we absolutely KNOW to be True which is why I hold the Gospel in a separate, properly basic category. Our Master had to simplify His Gospel so succinctly and clear so that we as a family from Martin Luther to Dr. Michael Brown to Dr. Leighton Flowers to perhaps even Fred Phelps, Esq. we ALL agree on the MOST important thing.
Love you Brothas and Sistahs!
I will look up the sources, but Pharisees were Determinists, while the Sadducees held to a type of libertarian free will.
I'm not sure I follow where you are going with the number of variables thing in 1 & 2. Is this from White's reference to Molinism a la WLC? In terms of the knowledge God possesses compared to man, most Reformed would stress that there isn't just a quantitative difference in knowledge, but a qualitative difference as well. IOW, God doesn't just know more, he knows better. In part because he created everything and knows it in ways we can never know, in part because our own thinking is marred by sin, in part because we are creatures and his ways are just higher than ours.
_"7. Human free will cannot exist."_
This can't be White's conclusion as his own confession affirms human free will, see London Baptist Confession chapter 9 for an overview. White is refuting some particular theories of free will, not the concept as a whole.
_"How else could He communicate this any more clearly saying there is at least 1 thing He didn't command and at least 1 thing did not come from His mind?"_
Not at issue. Yes, you can read all of God's law and find nothing that allows for and several explicit condemnations of idol worship and sacrificing children. By saying God decrees or ordains all that comes to pass, we aren't saying God has to specifically ordain each particular event and micromanage it, but rather (as Westminster Confession 3.1 puts it) he establishes human free will and the liberty and contingency of second causes by what he ordains. God designed humans and ordained that they would have dominion over the earth, and he also gave a law over them that he will judge them by. Within the authority God gave via his ordination, they broke God's law and thus face his wrath for sin.
_"He would never use the human concept of Sovereignty as there are no deeper parallels to draw from as human Sovereignty is categorically different."_
Yet he declares that he is the King of kings and Lord of lords. I can't think of a clearer affirmation of God's sovereignty.
_"Dr. White agreed that there was no concept of Determinism anywhere in Judaism or Christianity in the early Church until 400+ years A.D. with Augustine."_
Where exactly did he say this? Timestamp? I've only heard this from the fringes of Christianity who care more about opposing Calvinism than truthtelling. White's position is that Christianity is determinist, period. The debate is over exactly how and to what extent. It's hard to argue that it isn't when the very first verse declares that God created the heavens and the earth.
@@iglesiaagapecalvarychapelr6982Hi, thanks for the reply. From Josephus description of the Pharisees:
"They assert that everything is accomplished by faith. They do not, however, deprive the human will of spontaneity, it having pleased God that there should be a mixture, and that to the will of fate should be added the human will with its virtue or baseness"
Josephus, Ant. 18.1.3
The Sadducees argued that free will was ultimately determined by the course of history, not necessarily God. I'd imagine they'd be like a bunch of Bill Clinton types after reading about their behavior and beliefs. That was a long rabbit trail. Lol. (Josephus, War II. viii. 14; Antiq. XIII. v. 9).
The closest I could find were the Cult of the Essenes of Dead Sea Scroll fame.
You cannot recognize who Jesus is unless God intervenes (Mathew 16:7)
I feel like that’s the wrong verse
Is "accepting" Jesus appropriate language?
Youre given the ability to accept, so yes!
No it is not. Faith is the appropriate language.
15:50 Middle Knowledge (MK) is define by the Pattern of Being. God is beyond being. To me, MK is recognizing God’s Decree follows a pattern of Being that is not arbitrary or based on mere rationalization
Did you watch lol
That was hard to watch, as always Dr White rambles for 20 minutes, straw-maning free will, Molinism, sovereignty, etc.
What app and tv are you using??
tulapp 🌷
Jk i was honestly wondering myself
Dr. White, is it true, as some say, that God knows everything from all eternity, including things that have not yet occurred in our natural world? Also, if man's will is not free, is man still morally culpable for bad acts? Is sin even possible if man isn't free?
man makes choices. He is who he is. He freely chooses to sin, he freely chooses to do good. He is accountable for his choices. God is the primary cause of everything but there's secondary causes, and these are from man. God has purpose and he uses mans choices for that. I dont know how God degrees all yet He is not the author of sin. Man is morally culpable because he chooses to sin.
@@youvasquez But you see how the fact that we are responsible for our sins means that we do have free will. This is contrary to what Dr. White teaches. He is in error.
Here's what I find most fascinating about Calvinists. They believe man was born sinful because of Adam, AND deserves eternal punishment for being sinful. Said another way: man has no free-will, AND suffers forever because God is just. There's only one possible explanation for this anti Christ unbelief; God has blinded their eyes so they can't understand the truth.
God reconciled ALL to Himself in Christ, and is holding nothing against anyone. We played no causal role in becoming sinful, and no causal role in being redeemed. What God accomplished (past tense) in Christ was the redemption of ALL. Now that's GOOD NEWS. ☀️☀️
The road is narrow, and only few enter.
@@aletheia8054 You have no idea what that means.
@@fakeyououtdotcom2409 it means when it says
Only a small amount of people go to heaven
Multiverse is also ruled out
*Here is a PHD who uses Free Will every moment of his life claiming free Will does not exist*
“If we sin wilfully” 🤔 Do we have that terrible possibility to choose satan instead of God? Can’t we switch our attention from God to smth filthy? My experience say “yes”.
I can say He allowed it to happen but didn’t order for sure.
Your experience doesn't dictate the truth. The verse you reference is in Hebrews and it was written to Jewish Christians who were being pressured to go back to the old covenant sacrificial system and ordinances. The writer of Hebrews was not teaching that we can truly be born again but then choose Satan later on. The writer of Hebrews' point was that those who profess Christ but later turn away (apostasy) were never saved to begin with. He wrote it as a warning, not to teach that you can lose your salvation, but to teach that if you continue to deliberately sin then you may not even be like you profess to be.
@@contextforchrist2395 all I am saying is that if temptation comes( and it comes close to saved people) you are in the middle to make a choice. And you feel at least some portion of control for sure. Doesn’t it say that there are situations in witch we have to choose?
I wasn’t about to argue on the Hebrews topic, just borrowed the phrase for my question
@@КлюевСергей-э5с
Of course people think they have a free will. That's the pride of life. The thing Jesus said has to die in order to follow him.
ruclips.net/video/FQDsVYBNNTw/видео.html
Why can’t God create creatures that share His autonomous nature?
Great question! Personally, I think he can and did in Adam. But since Adam sinned, we are slaves to sin, or dead in sin. Dead people do not come to life on their own, and slaves do not free themselves. So the only way to God is through Jesus, and the only way to Jesus is him setting us free. Whoever the son sets free, is free indeed
@@timothyvenable3336 While it's true that dead people don't come to life on their own, this doesn't prove that we aren't autonomous in our wills.
In the Bible, "dead" means separated. You'll see it used like this in Revelation 3:1, and of the son in the parable of the prodigal son, where the father says his son was dead but is now alive when he came home. I see no reason to invent another usage when Paul uses it in Ephesians 2.
Of course we need Christ to set us free from our slavery to sin, but that doesn't mean we are unable to come to Christ.
A slave can absolutely free themselves though. Lots of slaves ran away. Some slaves probably liked their slavery though and felt compelled to stay. Others didn't. So that's not a helpful analogy for you.
@@luthlexor123 we do have autonomous wills, except without the ability to choose God (Romans 8:5-9).
Absolutely, dead means separation from God. You’re right. But God is the one to bring us back, we don’t come back on our own without him giving us the desire
We are unable to choose Christ by our own free will (Roman’s 8 and 1 Corinthians 2:14)
As far as the slave analogy, no analogy is perfect. However, your counter example is really bad. First of all, are you trying your say slaves could just leave their owners and they’d be free? Because that’s not how freedom worked. Also, slavery was different in the Roman culture (Jesus’s time). It was a contract usually. You couldn’t just decide you didn’t want to be a slave, you’re only option of being free from your owner was to be bought by someone else or freed by your owner. Either way, you could not free yourself.
A better counter would be to say only Jesus can free us from our sin, but we have the free will to ask him to do so. But your counter example was really, really bad
@@timothyvenable3336 Yes, people could run away from their owners and be free of the rule of their rulers. That is to say, a slave's will isn't dominated by their master. Their circumstances might be restricted, but it's not like their will is controlled by their master.
As for not being able to choose God, that's nowhere in the Bible. Not once is it said that we cannot convert without God choosing us before the foundation of the world. The two verses you've chosen to support your thesis (Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 2) are both about behaving or accepting things from God as a matter of maturity. Paul is exhorting *believers* to have the mind of the Spirit. He's saying without taking this mindset, you won't please God as a Christian. The context has *nothing* to do with conversion. You need to extrapolate out from the context of maturity to conversion, which is a very dicey way to get your theology. At *best*, it's indirectly taught here, which means there is no clear specific teaching in the Bible which says "Unbelievers cannot ever choose God without God first regenerating them, which He only does selectively".
Calvinism teaches that God is manifestly unjust. He punishes people born blind for being blind. He punishes people born dead for being dead. This makes absolutely no sense, and would make God unjust. The God as presented in scripture judges people for their own choices, not default conditions from birth that they have no control over.
Jesus marveled at the unbelief of people. According to Calvinism, Jesus shouldn't have marveled. He should have thought "Of course these people are unbelievers, because I didn't pick them to be regenerated before the foundation of the world".
No, the Bible is full of places where people plea and call people to repent. God isn't working behind the scenes to secretly regenerate some but not others.
Ask him when you get there
I would rather become a classical Arminian than a molonist lol
Funny, at the beginning, I'm sitting here thinking that this sounds more like a philosophy lesson than theology. It's so many layers upon layers of reasoning applied to the biblical text, and then some conclusion. He then says something like, "when I read philosophy it's so much like putting God into the categories of mankind" etc. He seems to be criticizing what he himself is doing. He's using his framework and putting God into those categories. That's how it seems to me anyway.
11:17 Yes.. there are a few verses where God says
If Sodom and Gomorrah HAD seen the miracles you see, they WOULD HAVE repented
IF I go to the City, WILL Saul come? GOD: Yes, he will come. David: If I go anyways, will the people of the city give me to Saul or protect me? GOD: They will give you to Saul.
David: Thanks Lord for your middle knowledge. I will NOT go to the city then.
Again, like most. He confuses LOGICALLY POST and Chronologically Post. IT ONLY HAS TO BE LOGICALLY POST since GOD is TIMELESS.
I think he is very confused of what Molinism really means. The fact is that while Calvinism is determinism by means of God acting on your will, Molinism is determinism by circumstances. So, both are really very similar at the very end. In other words, the supposed "free will" of Molinism is not such, since God has put the creature in a situation in which the creature cannot act or choose in a way he doesn't want. This is the part that he is missing and will never tell you.
I've noticed that about Molinism. The only free will on Molinism is that of potential humans. By the time God chooses which universe to instantiate, actualized humans are stuck of a fatalistic track that the potential humans chose for them. It ends up being far more deterministic than Calvinism, which affirms that God established man's free will and the liberty and contingency of second causes by what he ordains (Westminster Confession 3.1).
The Molinist conception of free will is definitely not deterministic; it is indeterministic. The way libertarian free will is defined is that it is "the ability to choose such that antecedent conditions are insufficient to causally determine one's choice." So, while the circumstances in which one chooses may themselves have been set up deterministically, the agent's choice is not causally determined by those circumstances.
@@nosyt42 While true, the Molinist essentially has God save scumming the universe until it give the output God wants. So sure, the possible universes are random and indeterministic, but that doesn't stop God from determining the outcome through repeated trials and only actualizing the one he wants.
"If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it." Isaiah 1:19-20 God states it as a choice with a reward or consequence. That is a direct quote from God.
True. But what was the outcome everytime man has had a choice? At some point men fail… Adam and Eve failed. israel had failed. The Apostles have failed. Because in the end it is not only about a possibility of a choice - it is about ability to choose rightly. It is not about rules and behaving outwardly the right way - the Pharisees did all that. It is about a change of heart, transformation of our very nature - this is only what God can do and He does it with Grace. „I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy” - also word from God…
Not sure what having a choice is supposed to prove. That man has "free will"? Calvinists already agree. See Westminster Confession chapter 9 for an overview of the position. That God doesn't have a decree? Yet it says "For the mouth of the LORD has spoken it." Would they have the choice without God giving them the choice?
Amen
@@LOT116 Don't even those who have had their hearts changed still fail? If so, then what?
@@oracleoftroy Honestly, I have no idea what Calvanists believe. It seems like they are splitting the atoms of individual hairs with quarks most of the time.
Calvinism logically leads to the heresy of monothelitism. Thank God early christians like Saint Maximus the Confessor already rejected such heresy. I recommend reading “Reconsidering Tulip” by Alexander Renault, as well as Disputations with Pyrrhus by St Maximus the Confessor
Nonsense statement. "Monotheltism?"
Who among Israel deserved to be saved or were saved by their own merit?
If you've ever read the bible, you know the answer is abosultely nobody!
Yet God spared a "Remnant" ther HE preserved. They did not preserve themselves!
Was God saving a remnant in the Old Testament "Monothelitism?"
Christians like you mock and demonize God's word and you don't even know it!
The problem is because you don't actually read scripture in it's entirety and what you do read, you insert your man-centered theology into the text!
@@rolysantos "Yet God spared a "Remnant" ther HE preserved. They did not preserve themselves!"
The Bible actually specifically tells us why God preserved them. This is in the Old Testament verses, and also these verses find their way into NT citations. It's because they didn't bow the knee to Baal.
Romans 9 is not about individual salvation. It's about God's choice to define Israel. Paul was never talking about God determining who would believe or not. It's about saying to the world "Belief in Jesus now saves", and Jewish people getting upset about that because they faithfully followed to Law for "nothing".
@@luthlexor123
1. Correct GOD SPARED a remnant.
Not sure why you made this comment.
2. The remnant were not "preserved" or "reserved" BECAUSE they did not bow the knee to Baal.
The remnant did not bow the knee BECAUSE it is God KEPT Them!
It is God and God ALONE who causes us to seek Him
(Do you remember these verses?)
Who KEEPS us from sin.
(Do you know any of these verses?)
3. Romans 9 is 100% about God's sovereign choice in election "from the SAME LUMP" of humanity!
do you know why God needed a "NEW" covenant "NOT LIKE" the old one?
Who was at fault in the Old Covenant?
What did they conintually do whether Jew or Gentile?
What did GOD DO to solve the problem?
When you understand these things, you'll understand God's sovereignty in election.
@@rolysantos I understand that Calvinism teaches that, but I'd rather go with what the Bible says. The Bible says God kept the remnant because of their actions: "But I will spare seven thousand in Israel-every knee that has not bent to Baal, every mouth that has not kissed him"
Calvinism has it completely backwards and inserts a man made theology.
@@luthlexor123
No my friend, it's not a matter of "Calvinism," it's what the bible actually teaches.
Have you ever read Ezekiel 6?
Who did God save?
Why?
were the 'spared' ones more worthy or at least not as loathesome to God?
Have you ever read Isaiah, Jeremiah?
Do you understand WHY God needed a NEW covenant?
Read Hebrews 8:
"God found fault with THE PEOPLE"
They did not remain faithful (they turned away)
So I TURNED AWAY FROM THEM!
Was it just a few of them?
"Most" of them?
How many does Isaiah say were saved because "they did something good" or "their actions were worthy?"
Turning away from God WAS THE PROBLEM in the Old Covenant.
Gentiles, who did not have the law "went their own way" "By NATURE" (Acts 14:16, Ephesians 2)
And even Israel who was given God's law to obey "Turned their own way."
So again, HOW MANY "turned their own way?
"ALL we like sheep have gone astray.
EACH OF US (every single one) has gone HIS own way."
Do you believe Isaiah?
Or was Isaiah a "Cavlinist" who "had it backwords?"
What would have happened if GOD had not preserved a remnant according to Isaiah?
"Unless THE LORD had left us a remnant.."
WE would have been like WHO??????
So unless God kept a remnant, ALL of Israel would have been like S&G, yet it wasn't God who preserved them, it was themselves?
And here we return to the nonsensical beliefs of the 'free will' proponents that THEY, like these remnant of Israel, are able to preserve themselves AND want to, while others, just like them, were not and did not!
And you truly believe this??????
No brother! Read Isaiah 49.
The mission of "the servant" "Israel" (Jesus)
is to
1. Restore the remnant of jacob
(the earthly Israel who were God's "Preserved" ones. His Elect)
(See Romans 11:7 where that's exactly what Jesus did)
2. Bring in the gentiles
(see Ephesians 2, 3, Acts 10) where that's exactly what Jesus did!
BTW,
The ONLY reason every single person does not turn away from God Still today, is because of what HE does INSIDE of them.
In the NEW covenant, GOD "causes them to fear Him" SO THAT they will NEVER turn away again (Read Jeremiah 32:40, a synopsis of the NC and Hebrews 8)
Relying on man's obedience FAILED! because ALL of them were in Adam!
But the New Adam will NOT fail, and those whom HE chooses WILL COME to HIm!
They cannot, not come to Him!
There were ALREADY His when He came to find Him. God had ALREADY given them to the son (see John 17)
God has an elect that HE chose and He will not bring His wrath on the earth until ALL of them are in the 'fold.'
THIS is exactly what 2 Peter 3:9 means that God is "not willing that ANY should perish."
His SHEEP (Mat 18:12-14)
Not exhaustive divine determinism, nor middle knowledge, nor some turbo kind of Pelagianism (if that was even a thing), but Synergism is the Orthodox / early Church view. Essence-Energy distinction.
Providence = the view of the Greek Fathers, John of Damascus etc... God in no way decrees the bad, evil, privation of the good.
Sovereign, yes... But In No Way the the micro manager x
I love James White, but it is so very obvious, as I know others have pointed out before, to anyone who has actually studied this that he totally misses the boat on this. Rather than continuing to teach on a topic he doesn’t seem to understand why not actually engage in direct conversation with someone like WLC and actually listen? You may not agree, but at least you’d have the opportunity of having someone who has studied this explain to you why you misunderstand the position.
James, have you reached out to WLC?
Unless you become a full blown determinist making God the author of evil, if you simply follow the logic of a White’s own reformed position then it is obvious that he himself believes in the concept of middle knowledge.
Also, I don’t know any serious scholar who thinks Molinism/middle knowledge answers everything. However, it does at least attempt to offer a logically coherent explanation, in my opinion, then today’s traditional reformed position which violates basic logic in making man responsible (response-able), while claiming he has no ability to respond to anything himself. The whole thing is just laughable from a logical standpoint. This is why, for example, you’d be hard pressed to find people with formal training in logic subscribe to the traditional reformed position. To be fair, Calvinist theologians like Sproul always end up admitting this themselves by often concluding their long talks with something like, “it may not make logical sense, but that’s what the Bible says.” I cringe every time I hear that - maybe, just maybe, the problem is not the Bible, but your interpretation of the text which makes no logical sense?
Are you born again?
I ask because you seem to have a problem with someone believing the Bible despite not fully understand it.
It seems you have the assumption that Christianity only makes sense if we can understand how God does things, which is utterly explained in the Bible we cannot do. Have you read the book of Job?
The reason why not so many scholars subscribe to traditional biblical views is also explained in the Bible. Unfortunately, the wise according to the world miss the whole point of the Bible, most of the time, because they are too proud to just believe where God is silent or human logic fails.
Yes, he has reached and try to get WLC but the man will not do it. And if you cringe every time you hear "the bible says" that cpuld be a pretty good sign you need to repent and believe and be born again into the family of God.
@@cesarchavez9897 actually other Molinists have reached out to White to engage him in conversation. I can think of Tim Stratton, Eric Hernandez and even Kirk MacGregor, who is by far the greatest authority on Molinism on the globe. White has declined.
For some reason, he just wants to engage Craig.
@@cesarchavez9897 Where did you hear that James White reached out to WLC? Genuine question.
I am saddened by the fact you somehow didn’t see, or just chose to blatantly ignore what I explicitly said (and I quote myself), “the problem is not the Bible, but your interpretation of the text which makes no logical sense.”
I have no issue with the inerrancy of scripture. I think many Calvinists have the issue. My Bible does not have contradictions. My Bible does not say that the color white is also black, and then insist that I and others must accept that because the Bible says it. If I think the Bible says a logical contradiction like that, then my conclusion is always that it is I who is misinterpreting the text, not that “the Bible is wrong,” OR “I must accept that white is also black.”
Calvinists claim to hold scripture in high regard, yet when faced with blatant logical contradictions that their interpretations of the text inevitably results in they don’t say, “perhaps my interpretation is wrong” and go back to see why that may be. That’s a very low view of scripture, in my opinion.
If my conclusions result in logical incoherence of contradictions I assume it is because my interpretation is wrong, and I go back to look at why my interpretation may be wrong. I’m not beholden to defending “a” position like Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, or any other kind of “ism” or worldview.
Logic does not determine truth.
Middle knowledge sounds a whole lot like Monte Carlo Simulation
If you believe that God knows what he would do if you had done something else then you believe in middle knowledge.
I was just making a snarky comment. I didn't really sign up for a debate. I will simply say that your comment reveals a certain presupposition about causality. That should probably be worked out before lobbing aphorisms over the fence.
I was waiting to hear that. Ha!
So belief in middle knowledge means that there are some “worlds” that God can’t create, which means God is not omnipotent. Middle knowledge is not a Christian doctrine.
No.... Middle knowledge says there are possible worlds that God *won't* create, because God has motives for creating. God could create infinite universes with an infinite number of you if He wanted to.
A lot of people take it to open theism
all this AND the Lord God, the Holy Trinity, is not BEYOND TIME AND SPACE, so has already created all time, beginning to end, and is not somehow subject to it (time), perplexed by it, nor dependent upon it (those attributes are only for the created).
Yes. I think that right there is why Middle knowledge fails. It makes God dependent on independent actions of potential man in potential universes instead of letting God be God and creator of what he wants to create for his own good purposes.
God's decree is that man have full autonomy over his will.
Uh no. You’re either a slave to Christ and righteousness or a slave to your own sin but you are a slave to something and subject to its authority. There is no truly libertarian autonomy for the creature, only for the creator.
”Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?“
Romans 6:16
@bradgarcia716 First off that Scripture testifies against YOU.
Do you know what obey means? Surely you do.
Two more, does God make you believe? Can the devil male you obey him?
When Paul gives you that Scripture, he is saying that we are a slave to whomever we obey, not you are a slave to whoever makes you obey them. I hope you see the difference.
You are only a slave to who you obey!
Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Chris, who with my mind, I serve the law of God...."
Everytime i listen to this man all i can think is how bad this guy needs to take a basic critical thinking course. He’s too deep in the weeds to realize his definitions are his own made or given to him by other men and not of God. He praises his name with his lips but not his heart
Under the rigour of a proper Biblical exegesis, we quickly discover that the idea of God’s ‘natural knowledge’ and God’s ‘free knowledge’ is a theological canard constructed to accommodate the (utterly unBiblical) idea of God’s ‘middle knowledge’ - an artificial abstraction contrived by men like William Lane Craig to somehow salvage the ‘sovereignty of man’ while paying little more than lip service to the absolute sovereignty of God…
I really don’t understand why the disciples of Dr Craig aren’t also troubled by the fact that he insists on appealing to two extra-Biblical sources to support his Autonomian commitments, rather than allowing the sufficiency of the very Word of God (2Tim 3:16,17) to speak for itself on the things of God…
On the one hand, Craig employs an argument formulated by a Muslim apologist (amongst others), Al-Ghazali, as ‘proof’ for the existence of God (as though it were possible to reduce the infinitude of God to the level of finite human comprehension)!
And then, Craig employs an argument formulated by Luis de Molina, a Spanish Jesuit priest commissioned by Pope Paul III as a Romanist ‘soldier of the Catholic Church’ to counter the Scriptural principle of Sola Scriptura upheld by the Protestant Reformation
It is little wonder that God has (yet again) given His church over to the Fool into apostasy…
But everyone who is saved has given up their free will, for the will of God, and everyone who is willful is not saved, so I'm not sure any of this matters.
I reject autonomy as unbiblical, but I believe the bible may support a form of libertarian free will which refines Calvinist determinism to allow for a loving relationship in which love compels but does not force the will
What is the difference between compulsion and force?
@@KalebMarshallDulcimerPlayer that’s a good point, I think the word impel or urge might be better, but it’s important to acknowledge God enables this but does not solely determine the persons choice
@@wezzers84 How do you separate autonomy from libertarian theories of free will? I think they are intertwined.
I would argue that the Biblical position that we are slaves (whether slaves to sin and Satan or righteousness and Christ) refutes all libertarian theories. But "Libertarian Free Will" is only one set of philosophical theories about free will, there are still plenty of compatiblist theories of free will that don't obviously contradict the Bible.
Reformed Christians have always confessed free will while rejected "libertarian" philosophy of the will. Westminster Confession chapter 9 gives a good overview of the Reformed position.
What I hear you saying is that you reject autonomy as unbiblical, even though you see it taught in the Bible. How does that work?
What does the bondage of the will have to do with exhaustive divine determinism?
Don’t forget to leave a tip on the way out of the classroom for Dr. White.
God does not have a problem with free will . If he did, he wouldn’t have given it to us. I understand how intelligent and respected Dr. White is, but there are plenty of examples in humanity to show us that we can be gravely wrong on a subject, despite being able to eloquently defend our position.
You have presupposed that free will (as most people would typically describe "libertarian free will") exists without actually grounding that statement with Scripture.
Jeremiah 19:5 "They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:"
I’m interested in this topic but hes trying to say in the video isn’t necessarily clear to me
Yeah i don’t understand how middle knowledge limits the world God can create
This is the first time I'm hearing about Middle Knowledge, but is this guy essentially saying that humans have no free will whatsoever?
Don't be fooled by this man. He holds his own philosophy over the clear teaching of scripture. James and many Christians arguing from this perspective try to assume far more about God's Omni attributes and how they work, when in reality we don't have the insight from scripture to make such claims.
God implies and speaks to man and judges man as freewilled beings who have true choices to make and be held accountable for, James' presuppositions on God's powers do not align with what scripture teaches
Free will in the sense that we make choices, yes. But the choices you make depend on your nature. Is a wolf free to choose between eating meat and a carrot? Yes. But the wolf will choose according to his nature, the meat. Likewise, a rabbit will choose the carrot.
Sinners make choices by their state of nature. Every choice they make, even ones that happen to be objectively "good" are made in a nature of rebellion against God.
@@Cinnamonbuns13 that's a non scriptural claim and you have no way of demonstrating that to be true, and our individual experience of "will power" dismisses any reason to believe your claim that our free will is strictly bound by our nature
We make choices but who's in control of the outcome, every outcome?
The heart of man plans his way,
but the Lord establishes his steps. Prov 16:9
@@isanyoneelseheretoday It is very Scriptural.
the enlightened man struggles with that the ancients understood in God’s perspicacious revelation.
Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.
- Psalm 139:16
Against You, You only, I have sinned
And done what is evil in Your sight,
So that You are justified when You speak
And blameless when You judge.
- Psalm 51:4
How then are you not guilty of the doctrine of double predestination?
All reformed people accept the idea of double predestination, because it is plainly taught in Scripture (Rom. 9:22-23). There is a distinction made here though: God is active in creating salvific faith in the elect that he predestined to salvation, but he is passive in the hardening of the hearts of the reprobate, meaning He lets the wicked go their own way, though they cannot resist / transgress the bounds His eternal purpose.
@@gospelcenteredministries7876 that’s news to me. Why the big debate about hyper vs non-hyper? Also, how in the world is God not culpable for sin if man “cannot” resist? I consider myself reformed but I would never argue that man “cannot” do good or even receive Christ, it’s that he WILL not. If that distinction is not made then you are indeed arguing that man is not responsible for his sins and that is as unscriptural as it gets.
@@zacharybeauford2244 Gospel Centered Ministries correctly describes "double predestination". What many non-Calvinists think of as "double predestination" is really called equal ultimacy.
For both "Single" and "Double" predestination, humans are already condemned sinners fully and justly deserving all of God's wrath, and out of those God choose some to be saved. The Reformed position is "double" because in passing over the reprobate, they will receive their judgement, whereas "single" leaves open the possibility of God coming back and saving those he passed over before. In either case, there is asymmetry in God's action: the reprobate are passed over, but God actively works to save the elect.
Equal ultimacy is different. Instead of being about God pardoning sinners, man is morally neutral and God is deciding whether each individual will be reprobate or a saint. Here there is a symmetry where God does similar work to actively save or condemn each person.
Where this touches the hyper debate is that hyper-calvinists usually (almost always? always?) hold to equal ultimacy, whereas Reformed Christians hold to double (and occasionally, single) predestination.
@@oracleoftroy I would have to disagree with both of you. The definition he gave of double predestination is not the classical definition. Double predestination is the notion that in the same way that God actively brings about the salvation of some He also actively brings about the damnation of others.
@@oracleoftroy I would have to disagree with both of you. The definition he gave is not the classical definition of double predestination. Double predestination is the notion that in the same way God actively brings about the salvation of some He also actively brings about the damnation of others, hence the word “double”.
Dr James White is like a math teacher
The decree was not made. God's plan (degree) comes from eternity past. Therefore, there cannot be a time when God decreed.
Middle knowledge shows a complete lack of understanding of God's eternal nature.
A God who has middle knowledge knows more than a god without middle knowledge. As such Molina's God is greater than Calvin's God.
@@Jemoh66 There is NO such thing as middle knowledge with The Eternal God. The Lord doesn't just know what is going to happen tomorrow...He's already there. As far as Molina and Calvin are concerned, stop following men and start following Jesus.
@@silencenewberry I don’t think you understand middle knowledge then. God knows more than the actual world. He knows all possible worlds.
If God "made me" this way, why am I being punished for sinning? Because I was born into sin and was enslaved to it? But then I'd have no way to be saved. If God "made us" this way rather than being autonomous, did God create Satan to be evil?
15:20 God is not limited since he can CREATE John Smith or not. And he CAN or NOT create an unlimited NUMBER of possible beings.
Here again, it is the Determinist that limits GOD's omniscience to uphold a MUCH lower view of God.
Wat.
Why do you limit God from determining this universe into existence?
Based on these definitions, I would also not hold to middle knowledge. (For what it’s worth, I am a Calvinist.) However, not everyone uses these definitions of middle knowledge. Thomists, for example, would differ with these definitions.
Putting God in the category of mankind? I mean isn’t that literally the reason his revelation came through mankind, so that we could relate to it? Isn’t the Bible another form of God coming down to make relation with us and to help us to understand him more? In the same way Jesus coming was to save provide a way back to God, but also to relate to us in humanity?
Also your reasoning is very circular, you assume your position is correct to falsify a counter position to yours. You assume Gods eternal decree (determined everything that will happen) to then say that Gods middle knowledge has to come before he determined everything that will happen. All I can think is circular reasoning, and gobbledygook listening to this. It’s not an honest rebuttal and I’m not even a Molinist but I understand it better than what you just described.
@@jacobwittmer2479 So you agree with White that molinism is nonsense?
Why couldn't God make John Smith and allow him to control his own decisions?
You mean the Problem of Determinism!!!
No he meant the problem of free will.
@2:25 I disagree with Dr Whites assessment of philosophy. On one hand he seems to believe that theology is devoid of philosophy. Why else would you make the criticism he makes? But the bigger flaw of Whites understanding of philosophy is ignoring the fact that philosophy is a discipline in thinking rationally and logically about things. If a philosopher comes to a conclusion concerning Gods being or the three persons and the Trinities unity based on a statement like “the Lord our God is one,” that may be a human category, but it’s a category that is true.
But go beyond that for a moment. You cannot read Bahnsen or Van Till without understanding that philosophical categories are unavoidable.