Theological Ramifications Of Middle Knowledge
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- Started back into reading and interacting with Dr. William Lane Craig’s presentation of middle knowledge and Molinism in his book, The Only Wise God.
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudio... for more of A&O ministry's content
#freewill #williamlanecraig #apologics #philosophy #hitchens #catholic #creatures #worlds #book #knowledge #peter
It's funny, people (Roman Catholics) accuse us Protestants of inventing new doctrines, but it's they who invented this new doctrine of "middle knowledge", in response to Protestantism. The irony.
Seriously, it's amazing how many people claiming to be "Protestant" are siding with Jesuits in order to justify their idol of "free will".
@@douglasmcnay644 I think a lot of people commingle American patriotism with Christianity-that people who are not a Calvinist could not conceive of not having freewill.
@@douglasmcnay644 If any protestant sides with the average Jesuit on any topic, I'd say they have bigger problems.
ruclips.net/video/gncpav70DB0/видео.html
you say "us" and "they" when referring to Protestants. are you a protestant or not
Man doesn't want to be a "Robot" designed by God. Rather he/man wants God to be a "Robot" to his Free Will. God has to respond or create based on what Man's Free Will desires or chooses. The Created becomes the Ruler of the Creator. Man cannot stand that he is not in charge of his own destiny. Therefore, he/man, creates a "Way" to God that is satisfying to himself. He is building the Tower of Babel to reach God his way. When Predestination is taught, man is repulsed and gnashes at his teeth and begins to stone those who believe that God is in charge. Man wants God to bow to his will. But The Elect knows that we must bow to His Will.
Oh! So you say 'the elect knows that we must bow to his will,' but let me ask you this 'how does the elect know this?" How do you know and come to accept this? Well, of course in your doctrine (Calvinism), it's predestined by God! You know this only because God wants you to know it!
Similarly, if I refuse to believe that I am a robot or embrace the idea of having free will, and if I hold the belief that God is loving and grants humans free will through His sovereignty, then in your perspective, the calvinist perspective, it would simply be because God has predestined me to hold these beliefs. Every aspect of our lives is predetermined by God, leaving no room for human agency. Thus, it would appear that the sole purpose of my existence would be to belong to the non-elect and suffer in hell, as this fate was preordained by God even before the creation of the world.
You also mention that the non-calvinists do not want to be mere robots designed by God, but instead desire God to conform to their notion of free will. If this were true, it would mean that God intended for the non-calvinist to think this way. This presents the classic dilemma of determinism, where moral responsibility is entirely extirpated. Furthermore, if humans have no free will whatsoever, then God is not obligated to introduce pain and suffering in the world. He could have compelled us to be good at all times, similar to the "robot" that you mentioned and seemingly desire us to be. I mean, if our existence was destined to be robotic without any semblance of free will anyway, we might as well be inherently good robots.
Wow, you really touched upon a true aspect of what Molinist / Arminian theology brings to bear. For Molinism does in fact reduce God to a supercomputer who is attempting to optimize the outcomes of His desires, yet rendered constrained by some foreign imposed algorithm that dictates what portion of His Will He can actualize. He is made to be like a card player, who would like to score a royal flush, but is handcuffed by the hand He has been dealt. But dealt by whom? And whence do the cards come from? What piques my curiosity is the motivation behind such philosophies; things which are expressly not taken from scripture, but are meant to soothe the discomforts of the mind. Why does man so desperately want to assert himself as fully autonomous? We often hear the cries that a failure to do so renders God evil. But is that really a matter of contention among Christians? What Christian theology posits God as evil? This argumentation seems as genuine as pro-choice advocates arguing on behalf to R victims. No, I do not ascribe the supposed virtue of defending God from "evil charges" as the mainstay cause for such postulations. Rather, it is fear; and it is a wholesale legitimate one at that. Fear that we do not posses the capacity at our own discretion, on our own timetable, to effectuate our salvation. The protecting of God against "evil charges" is a thin mask hiding this innermost deeper cause, and it's a cause I can understand and even empathize with. What's terrifying to me is how analogous this all is to the plight of everyday non-believers. While I believe there are many regenerated souls who have been Graced in spite of their insufficient and unsound theologies, those who pound the pulpit decrying against the effective Sovereignty of God and man's bound-in-sin creaturely will, give me real pause as to the condition of their souls. We ultimately know not who is redeemed according to the good pleasure of His Will, but some of the borne fruit on display surely smells rotten at times.
@@krosapachuau6509 There are a number of assumptions in your comment that I believe warrant further examination. First, nobody, Calvinist or otherwise, is asserting that man is a robot. We are volitional creatures. That is not in debate. However, we do not have what is popularly coined as "free will" - a capacity to choose from all available alternatives. The will is bound, limiting our options. We do as we are most inclined at any given moment. Whatever inclination scores highest among the perceived set at any given moment will be the thing we do. A "free will" posits no such condition, that what we do in effect is random. Natural man's inclinations are steeped in unrighteousness. See Romans Ch 3 for the x-ray of the human condition. What is the substance that defines the outcomes of our inclinations? They are preferences. They are not choices anymore than the acknowledgement you have when you put a fork to your mouth to experience a certain dish as delicious or unpleasant. You don't choose what tastes good versus what tastes bitter. They are pallet preferences. So the inclination (which directs the will) moves toward that which it prefers. It is in this department that God affects His Will - by altering the pallet to where the inclinations are directed. God does not take control over our motor skills, nor usurps the direct cognition of the mind of his creatures. Through regeneration, what formally tasted bitter and seemed as foolishness (i..e faith in Christ), now tastes sweet; and the delights of the world, having formally tasted sweet, now taste bitter.
Second, you are correct. That if you declare that God is in fact not Sovereign, then that is according to His Will for you at this moment. The sole purpose of your existence is not about you. All of creation, including the creatures He made in His own image, have all been brought about for one primary purpose - the Glorification of Himself of which you and I are mere vessels. He Glorifies Himself through His unspeakable Love and does similarly through His terrifying Wrath. You will be used, as we all are, to bring about His Glorification by one means or the other. We are all to be held accountable for our natural hatred of God. It is our default state. Only Grace can save you from this state. Postulating what God could have done differently is the definition of absurd, given He is the source of all things. Man cannot put his Creator on trail in any meaningful way, that doesn't at the same time lead to his destruction. This is the Triune God of Scripture. If you find yourself seeking Him out, that is His Will. The assurance of your salvation will not be marked by perfectionism, not in behavior or theology, but in the undeniable pallet change that has allowed you to exhibit a saving faith in Jesus Christ.
The problem with middle knowledge is it is not biblical..............no wonder WLC holds to it.
Thank you Dr White! I’ve been having this conversation several times over the last few weeks and I appreciate the encouragement thru correct exposition of Reformed doctrine.
Around 4:50 talking about the world God creates you say "the world defined for Him, as defined by free actions of creatures." Or something to that effect (it's more a paraphrase than a quote. My point being, this is EXACTLY where I got in a conversation with my molonist reasoning professor at SWBTS's college.
I WAS a molonist (because it sounded better than Armenianism which I had previously been) but I was struggling with how biblical reformed theology sounded (mind you no professor was teaching reformed theology, I just read my Bible and started believing ideas that I came to learn later WERE reformed) hence my having this conversation to see if a professor can put my mind at ease.
Long story short we go through the logical process of these claims and define our terms and he ended up being honest with all the claims which led him to say, "the elect are those whom God knew would choose Him in the world in which the greatest number of people would choose Him."
I said thank you and left the classroom (class was already over, we were talking afterwards.) Before I even shut the door I threw molinism out as heresy because what he said explicitly puts the merit of salvation in a "work" that we did, in that the reasoning is that God saw what we 'would do' and so it is no longer explicitly His grace which is not grace at all.
The next day I watched R.C. Sproul's "what is reformed theology" series 3 times and have been reformed ever since. It stands up to every test and is the only theology that is internally and externally consistent. And I'll add, the only one that doesn't feel like you have to lie somewhere to make it believable.
I am struggling right now on this topic... i was convinced Calvinism was the way but Craig's point on God being the author of evil on this view reigns true in my mind, you can do all sorts of semantic gymnastics to try and avoid this but it is coherent when i look at the arguments for this fact... i reviewed Molinism as an alternative but something does not seem right to me about it.... i also researched Congruism but i think in the end a modified version of Calvinism might be the best solution...
What conclusion did you reach at the end?
@@SquishMe I thought WLC was really weak on that point during the discussion with White. He framed his own position in terms of primary and second causes, such that sin is not directly caused by God as a primary cause, but as a second cause as a result of the things God has created. But that's the same understanding the Reformed have. So if it is a problem on Reformed theology, Molinism doesn't offer a different answer. You'd have to go elsewhere, and to be honest, this primary/second cause distinction is one the church has settled on for a long time now, so one would be looking at very unorthodox positions like Open Theism if one wants to avoid it.
Worse, Craig tried to claim that Reformed theology does claim that God is the direct cause of sin. I dont know if he was just ignorant and unprepared or if he was intentionally lying, but I noticed he dropped his entire argument after White cited WCF 3.1, one of the confessional standards that Reformed Christians hold their ministers to.
the hypotheticals don't hurt Craig's position. the best refutation to this nonsense is the notion that middle knowledge does absolutely nothing to uphold free will as God still determines the so-called "free" actions of men. only with Craig, instead of God determining Creation directly by a decree, he determines his Creation through this added layer of middle knowledge. middle knowledge becomes nothing more than a smokescreen for men like Craig to say "Free will! Free will!" but in the end it has no meaning at all. they are no more free than by the Calvinist position. they just end up abandoning scriptural testimony altogether in favor of their philosophical nonsense while gaining absolutely nothing
So true. The hypothetical worlds of what men would do under certain situations are just . . . hypothetical. God chooses one world to create because that is the one that He wants to create. So in the only real world . . . the only created world man is not libertarian free. God created the universe and the nature of man and all men down through the ages and created an exact environment so that men will make a certain choice. So god created a world in which I would be typing this response tonight. not that me typing a response is so important but God wanted a world in which I would do this (amongst all other actions of men that actually take place). Thus God is limited by the freewill of man in the hypothetical world but then makes a world in which man is completely determined to do what they will do. So in Molinism both God and man are not completely free.
I do think God has a base middle knowledge but I do not think God has to use middle knowledge to create the world. God is not limited by middle knowledge or the choices of man. Just like foreknowledge. God does not make his choice on who to elect because of his foreknowledge although he has foreknowledge. I think it is the same for middle knowledge.
Molinism, middle knowledge, etc. is so unnecessary
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…
so much work goes into denying the sovereignty of God, systems that say God is sovereign but then make Him subject to human free will lol
At 10:05, "So they are all micromanaged all based on middle knowledge of what they would do in that circumstance." Yes. And this is exactly what Calvinist's believe except without the middle knowledge part. On the normal view of the decree, they are all micromanaged based on the decree with no regard to anything about them specifically. They just do whatever God happens to decree and God is blind to anything else that might have happened because any of that Knowledge content would not be grounded in anything (right?). Or perhaps God does have middle knowledge to inform what He decides to decree. That's a game changer though. "If one person acts autonomously, it all falls apart." This is actually only true on the normal view of the decree. If God has middle knowledge that informs the decree, He will not be hindered by autonomous men at all.
I think your overall point is that you don't think Middle Knowledge actually achieves what it sets out to do, which is to show that determinism and human freedom are compatible. I think the differences are this:
1.) Molinism: God micromanages a world to insure all choices are "made by the humans themselves" and yet all His plans are also achieved. Since God has middle knowledge, He is able to create a free world.
2.) Calvinism: God micromanages a world to insure all choices are "made by Him" and so all His plans are also achieved. Since God doesn't have middle knowledge, God is unable to create a free world.
It's a subtle, yet key difference. Both systems are forms of determinism and Sovereign control. But only one allows genuine Love and Justice.
As Dr. White has pointed out, the big problem with this logic is the lack of scripture. Just because something does not fit your brain, it does not mean it's false.
Calvinism just states what the Bible states. The problem is when men don't accept it. God is sovereign and has ordained all our days as the psalm says and yet we are accountable for our own acts. God is three in one. Now, go and live with that. Of course you can and should think and mediate about it. But when your thoughts deviate from what the Bible says, then you are the one drifting, not the ones who stick to the revelation from the author of everything.
When you say only one system is just, who is judging it? You? Your logic? You are just a piece of mud trying to say what the potter can and cannot do. If your knowledge is not rooted in the fear of the Lord, it's all end up in foolishness.
@@Luiz__Silva Doctor White dares to analyse God, not just accept His revelation. Doctors White invented God whom he can psychoanalyse. Poor creature .
but why add middle knowledge at all, especially since it has zero biblical support? why do you need to cling so desperately to free will? also calvinism doesn't teach that "God makes all choices." have you even read any Calvinism? men are free in Calvinism but not in the sense you desire. also if you believe that God chose a world that conforms to his desire, how does that make you free? your choices are still determined, with just an added layer to make you _feel_ free but ultimately this is only a philosophical freedom with absolutely no other significance except that you have completely abandoned scripture and reduced God to merely a grand Chooser rather than the Almighty, and elevate you to some kind of artificially and superficially "free" creature. molinism becomes absolutely pointless. this nonsense is obscene
@@Luiz__Silva Calvinism staring whet the Bible states is a lie.
There’s nothing Biblical about Calvinism.
Calvinism states what man wants to state and nothing that the Bible states.
Calvinism states man’s opinions and assumptions of what they want the Bible to state but it doesn’t.
Is it contended that God does not possess Middle knowledge, or that God doesn't use it?
The contention is that if it does exist, as Molinism defines it, then it would be something that exists outside of God's control and then subsequently is able to put limitations on Him. I don't know if that scares you, but if there is anything that can limit God, doesn't that make it more powerful than God? So in the long run it means that the free choices of uncreated beings are sovereign over God and that all He is is just an arranger of events.
@@douglasmcnay644 if God makes a covenant is the covenant greater than God?
@@ttff-bd2yf I dont think Molinism teaches that God makes middle knowledge in anyway similar to how God makes a covenant. Not sure where you are going with this.
If Sacraments are fake, why do the work then? Even Luther said that he couldn’t argue The Holy Communion enlightened his soul. I can attest to it as an Eastern Orthodox Christian. Myriads of people can argue the same: “you had a born again experience, and then you sin, the soul gets darkened, you pray, you read the Scripture, you even convince yourself it’s ok you had been saved, you go to a therapist- nothing helps.
And then you decide to go to a Confession and the Holy Communion- in moment the heaviness and darkness subsides”
Feelings are not a good gauge for truth. The Mormons hold to the "burning busom" as a way of determining truth and many have claimed that then they asked "God" whether Mormonism is true, they get it as a confirmation. Acid reflux, a bowel movement, or even perceptions of such things have no bearing on the reality of such things. All that really matters is God's word, correctly understood in its original context.
So your telling us that God is using a neural network doing machine learning in a algorithmic statistical la of large numbers to figure out who he should pick to be there before the foundation of the world? Awesome.
@@user-kh1vo2fc6s Worded very good, wish I wrote that well. Speaking of exceptionalism,I had commented on someone els’s comment stating I think we mix our Christianity with America...this in the ideal of liberty or freedom...we have freewill because we are American. Seeing your comment on exceptionalism and started wondering if we could put American Exceptionalism (or. Christian exceptionalism.)
Anyone else reading this, I love my country,I served it for ten years, she’d my blood for it...twice. I gave up a big part of my life-and especially my career. My only regrets are friends I lost and me not dying in their place. I am not trying to brag but I can see how someone can take my words and misinterpret them as to being a hater of my country. Thanks for letting me share this little bit.
Ignatius started the Jesuits to spread the gospel where it had not been heard, the counter reformation was a later development.
If their initial purpose was to counteract the reformation why were they in Paraguay and Japan. Not exactly reformed countries
The Jesuits are the "secret society" of the Roman Catholic Church. The concern of the RCC in those days and the indeed now is its authority. That is the underlining factor which is never discussed but always there in all the Church's attitude grilled in the thinking of the followers. Loyola went to the Pope and promised to bring back the world under the Pope's domin. In those days the Roman Pontiff was more powerful than the kings and the emperors who trembled at his voice. I doubt that such a power came from God, but it didn't matter. The point is, the Jesuits' work was to take over the world through influence. It did not matter whether the countries had Protestantism or not. The gospel of RCC is its authority over the world, and they have to have it at all cost. Their first choice naturally was to take over the education system. It's curious that in that Church, the best gift its followers can give to the Church is to give up the best brains of their Children. Put all those brains together, make them carnal and the result is layers of strange doctrines that are difficult to peel to find their real meaning.
The Jesuits purpose from the very beginning was to stop the spread of Protestantism and help the Roman Catholic church from losing power, revenue and political influence which it had enjoyed for centuries. Spreading the "gospel" as defined by Rome may have been useful in countries like Japan which was not Catholic, and where the Jesuits were later expelled for political interference.
I do not have such a problem with middle knowledge per se. I think God can know how any creature would act if they were in any situation before He actually creates said creatures. But I do not think God's middle knowledge is used to limit God and his choices. I also believe in God's foreknowledge but that does not limit God either. Thus if we look at the elect, I believe in unconditional election. not because I do not believe in God's foreknowledge or in His middle knowledge. I just do not think that they are necessary nor that they limit God. God is the creator of all things and His decree makes it so that He knows exactly what will occur in his creation. I hope I said that last sentence right.
but in the end Molinism is just another form of determinism because God chooses only 1 of the almost infinite hypothetical worlds to create. thus god chooses one's nature and environment and thus one's choice. It is not only that God has a foreknwledge of our choices under Molinism but that He knows if he creates me with a certain nature and in a certain environment (which he would know by the one world that He actually creates) then I will do the action that He wants and determines me to do.
In the end Molinism does the interesting thing of limiting the freedom of God and man.
ofcourse middle knowledge shows God's attributes. Its HIS knowledge.
Dr. White says, "He has a free decision to create a world. Yeah the world defined for him by Middle Knowledge." Even if this is correct, Middle knowledge belongs to God and therefore is an attribute. It's not as if an outside force or power is making God's Middle Knowledge be different than it is. Middle knowledge is infinite. But it's also linear just like Spacetime in the real world. In other words as God begins to Decree, He uses Middle Knowledge to inform Himself about what will take place if He does or does not do something and this creates a single strand from the infinite web of Middle Knowledge to become real. Point one in the Decree/strand would be the big bang, creating the world. All other avenues after that point are also directly and specifically chosen by God. Molinism just explains that God can do this (the Decree or single strand in the web) in a way in which His choices do not violate men's freedom, but rather uphold them in and in-line with His Decree. I really don't understand why more Calvinists don't take this explanation and run with it. It 100% makes your case stronger.
Greg Mahler wrote: "I really don't understand why more Calvinists don't take this explanation and run with it."
As Luiz Silva has pointed out to you in your other comment, the problem with all this is the lack of Scripture. So, since most Calvinist/Reformed folk take Scripture as their final authority in these matters and in order for _"more Calvinist"_ to _"run with it,"_ please substantiate your explanation Scripturally.
@@electronicMI Proof of middle knowledge is present in statements of Counter-factuals like Luke 10:13
Denying middle knowledge is to effectively say "God can't create free creatures". God as defined by Molonists is more sovereign than God as defined by Calvinists, something Molina noted in his writing
@@moby98745632178463 wrote: "Proof of middle knowledge is present in statements of Counter-factuals like Luke 10:13"
Are you claiming that the conditional statement in that verse proves middle knowledge, as described by Greg Mahler? If so, how so?
@@electronicMI Yes, Christ knows how certain people would have acted in different circumstances. That's middle knowledge.
Free knowledge being what will happen and natural knowledge being what could happen; neither of these two fit the description given by our Lord.
@@moby98745632178463 Thank you.
So then, based on His prior middle knowledge, God freely created a world wherein the people of Tyre and Sidon were denied the mighty works requisite for their repentance. In other words, if no mighty works, then no repentance, correct?
Being a Son of God before being born by flesh and blood blinds you about who you are, saying I AM to do anything or thought is the easiest but hard for book worshippers to become waken, you will but after you have seen the son then you can see the father. Imagination is the only God in man. Looking outside yourself is funny.
James White : Peter denied Jesus because God decreed it. I guess he would say the same about other sins. Pedophiles rape little children because God decreed it.
The ridiculous idea is the claim that the bible teaches this! Let me point you to the God of the bible -
Jer 32:And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech, which I commanded them not, neither came it into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
*But as per Dr White God decreed the* *above event*..
I guess Dr White is talking about some God other than the one in the bible.
So what you are actually implying is that God learned something. That should scare you enough to realize that there is something wrong with your view.
God did not "command" Sampson to get a wife from the Philistines either in Judges 14. As a matter of fact, he forbid the Israelites from intermarrying wiht Canaanites (Exodus 34:11, 16, Deut 7:1,3) His parents even expressed their displeasure about it.
Yet we read in verse 4 "His parents did not know that *THIS WAS FROM THE LORD* who was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines; for at that time they were ruling over Israel." So Yes, God decreed it!
No, James is not speaking of some other God other than the one in the bible. He is speaking of the God YOU claim to follow and believe in, yet don't seem to really believe what His word actually says about who He is and what He does!
Could you flesh out this argument?
White: God decreed all that would happen
You: God did not command sin X
Missing: argument for why we should equate God's law and God's decree as used by Reformed Baptists like White.
The statements aren't in any obvious conflict. God's decree that White is speaking of isn't the same as the 10 commandments or the rest of the Law. Yes, you will not find 1 single law commanding child sacrifice or worship of other gods. Yes God decrees (I prefer the Westminster Confession language here, "ordains", but White is London Baptist Confession, so we will go with "decree") all that comes to pass. Where is the conflict?
Guys, Don’t you get it? Who talks like this?” I have no free will, God programmed me to do what I do”?
Of course, it is a speech of an angel.
And human is higher than angels.
Now, ask yourself which angel would be convincing humans that they are just like him? Who envy humans?…
Who has been tricking Dr White for decades already to create a computer God who Doctors white can analyse?
@@user-kh1vo2fc6s what?????
At 3:09 Dr. White says, "I've heard the claim. You can be a 5-point Calvinist and believe in Middle Knowledge. Nope. You can't. Well but I've read people... Sorry. Um. The key to Reformed Theology is consistency. And a Theological system that is based upon the defense of the autonomy of man at the expense of the Freedom of God cannot be made consistent with any kind of meaningful expression of Reformed Theology. You will have to redefine one or the other or both."
I am a 5 point Calvinist and believe in Middle Knowledge yet I also believe that my viewpoint is 100% consistent with Reformed Theology. I do not need to redefine Human Freedom nor Divine Freedom at all. In fact, Molinism is the explanation of how Compatibilism works. I don't understand why you don't take Molinism and run with it Dr. White. It provides an actual explanation of how Calvinism/Determinism works and yet men are not puppets, pulled and animated by God. It GREATLY makes the case for Calvinism much more palatable and acceptable as well and harmonizes all of the biblical passages. God hardens Pharaoh's heart... How? Middle Knowledge. By Decreeing a world where Pharaoh would harden himself freely. Compatibilism.
*sigh*
I think your quote provides the clear distinction between Middle Knowledge and Reformed Theology as White sees it. Middle Knowledge is "a Theological system that is based upon the defense of the autonomy of man at the expense of the Freedom of God." That is, God's freedom is contingent on man's choices.
According to the Westminster Confession 3.1, Reformed Theology affirms: "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."
Thus it is man's freedom and the liberty and contingency of second causes that is established by God through what he ordains. Man's freedom is contingent on God.
So the key difference is that in Reformed Theology, God ordains the authority and extent of Man's freedom through his design and purpose for creation and decreeing man's dominion over the earth, whereas in Middle Knowledge, Man ordains the extents of God's freedom to create through their free will choices known to God through middle knowledge. And especially given where WLC goes with this, Molinism makes God more like a computer algorithm filtering through the choices of man and actualizing the ones that maximize good in some way rather than a free agent in his own right.
James White -----> “The key to Reformed Theology is consistency.”
Me -----> rotfl!
@6:00 James White contradicts himself.
@6:30 James White can’t see that the Molinist Gods middle knowledge is no different than the Calvinist God planning and authoring his decree before he decrees it. That is why both Molinism and Calvinism are false, because the worlds they are both Creating exists nowhere else but in the Molinist Gods and the Calvinist Gods mind; which they are both Creating out of whole cloth.
@7:15 James White can’t figure out where the facts known by the Molinist God and the Calvinist God come from! I’ll tell you where their facts come from. The facts of the Molinist Gods knowledge and the Calvinist Gods knowledge only come from the Molinist Gods and the Calvinist Gods devious minds. That is why both Molinism and Calvinism are false.
@8:40 to @10:40 James White unknowingly explains exactly why both Molinism and Calvinism are false.
.
JQP, first, your response is nonsense.
Second, do you do ANYthing else besides try to argue with people on YT about things you don't understand?
Goodness gracious man, enough already!
@@rolysantos ---- lol! "your response is nonsense" isn't an argument. I've yet to find anyone with the wherewithal to engage in intellectual conversation on any of the Calvinist pages. All I ever get is ad hominem attacks like the ones you just spouted. How about you try to engage in an actual conversation where you say something intelligent?
@@JohnQPublic11 I actually have tried to engage you in the past John but you were not willing. you have what is termed invincible ignorance. That’s not meant to be a pejorative just a fact. I think you think too highly of your intellect and so you were unwilling to listen to others even when they give you facts. That’s why I told you goodness gracious enough already man. Just stop already.
Unless and until you ridyourself of your arrogance you will not be able to learn the truth. I’m actually doing you a favor by telling you this but I’m sure you will reject my counsel.
@@rolysantos --- lol! An obnoxious condescending holier-than-thou attitude isn't an argument; either put up or shut up. Show everybody what a magnificent intellect you have and bring forward an argument that will pass the laugh test.
@@JohnQPublic11
You just proved my point.
If Jesus was conveying what Doctor White is teaching He would have made a correction. It would be like this” well, guys, forget about what I said about eating My Meat and drinking My Blood, all you need is just get born again and you are all set”.
That makes no sense.