Interviewing Tim Stratton: A Respectful Response to James R. White (Molinism Discussion)

Introduction to the Calvinism and Molinism Conversation

All right, welcome to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Elias Ayala and today we have a Guest here last week. I think it was a what week was it? I think it was the week before Christmas we had dr. James White from Alpha and Omega ministries to talk about the topic of Calvinism and Molinism and so if Molinism doesn't sound familiar to you guys You can watch the other episode where a Calvinist defines for you What Molinism is but I'm going to ask our guest today who is a Molinist to define Molinism for us but the the majority of this discussion is so that I can provide my friend here Tim Stratton from free thinking ministry to Provide a response a respectful response to dr. James White and his criticisms of Molinism now I'm a Calvinist.

I am on dr. White side yet. Look what we're doing here. Look what we're doing here. You have a Calvinist and a Molinist getting along and talking about the issues. And so if anything else regardless of where you stand on this issue.

Hopefully interactions like this can just encourage people to look past some of the differences without compromise. Of course and talk about these issues. And who knows in many cases you will find that We may have a lot more in common than you think and this is right to have Tim Stratton here because when I think of Tim Stratton, I think of two things.

I think of Jason Statham Transporter okay, and I think of a bridge builder. I know that sounds completely Opposite right. I think of a bridge builder whether one agrees with him or not. Tim really I think believes in building bridges between various theological perspectives because Really where we're really concerned with kingdom work and that's the vision that we have.

I think the better and so I'm just going to provide Tim an opportunity to introduce himself and maybe say a little bit about his ministry and then we'll We'll take it from there. So welcome and thank you for coming on Tim, man.

Thanks for having me on your show Eli you know the two of us have been friends for several years now and It's you know, we've had some fantastic conversations off the record so it's cool now to officially be on the record with you and You know, you've really had a big impact on many people.

In fact my colleague Timothy Fox who's one of the other regular contributors on free thinking ministries. He told me the other day that if it wasn't for you Eli, he doesn't know if he'd be in apologetics today he doesn't know if he would have gone to Biola University and if you want to have done that we would have never met and Who knows a free thinking ministries would be a thing.

So really Eli maybe You're responsible for this whole mess. I found myself. But you know, what's cool is You know, you used to be a Molinist and now you're a Calvinist. I used to be a Calvinist and now I'm a Molinist and so we've kind of you know We passed each other but for a while we were right on the same page for a while because we were passing each other.

You know, and but we still aren't too far away. And like you said, I'm really Interested in building bridges behind the doors of the church because we live in a day where if the church isn't you know Reunited we are in trouble.

We have to we have some big threats out there. That you want to take us down? So well, I I love debate behind the doors of the church. Really? I'm more concerned with truth. You and I have talked about this before we're more concerned with truth than we are with being right and And if you're concerned about truth primarily.

Then even if somebody shows you that you're wrong, well, it's a win-win situation. But So I well all that to say I love having Debates behind the doors of the church with brothers and sisters and Christ.

Because that's what iron sharpening is all about where you know, I think I'm right you think you're right. But we're gonna have a respectful Sparring match, you know, I used to do MMA, you know, since you brought up Jason state then we'll bring in some martial arts.

I used to do martial arts for a living. Even competed in MMA professionally for a little bit only two fights. I was one in one. Yeah, nice I can't contend with that. But You know when you spar with your your friends, you're not trying to injure them.

You're you're trying to make them better because you want them to make you better. You want to continue you want to train again the next day if you injure them? You're not gonna train together again the next day.

You've lost a sparring partner. So you're not trying to injure your friends. You're you're trying to make them better. You might be trying to win the sparring match, but you're doing so respectfully. So that's how I look at.

These conversations with brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree in the end we're trying to make each other better. We're we're trying to make. We're trying to strengthen the other individual. We're trying to strengthen ourselves and we're trying to strengthen the body of Christ in general.

So I think you and I are cut out of the same cloth in that respect. And so Speaking of respect. I do want to offer my respect to the person whose view I'm going to criticize a little bit today. So speaking of James White, I Respect him immensely.

You know, first of all, just let me say that Dr. White and I are so to speak Classmates, we both attend Northwest University as far as I believe I believe he's enrolled doing some PhD studies at Northwest University and I just submitted my Doctoral dissertation at Northwest University.

So well, we don't have any official classes together. We're both at the same University. So. But but really, you know, although I respect him immensely My the biggest issue I have with James White is that he thinks Star Trek is better than Star Wars.

So No, man, you know, I really love the last Star Wars movie. As far as you know, the visuals are concerned. I think it was the best Star Wars movie ever made. And really the only thing that wrecked well, there's two things that wrecked it for I'm not even say erected.

There was two problems. I had with it. One was the gratuitous gay kiss at the end. I mean, come on. We didn't need that. All right, fine. All right, if you want to push that on me fine. I'll just pretend I don't see it.

The only other problems if I were to say it was a problem Was that it was trying to fix the mistakes of the previous movie and the last Jedi which I thought was a horrible movie. In fact, I would say I think that was the worst movie ever made that belonged to a bigger set of other movies.

Okay. But this last one the rise of star the way the rise. All right. The rise of Skywalker As a standalone movie might be one of. It's it's at the top of the list as far as movies are concerned and I think one of the best.

It's actually I know this might blow people's mind and be like you're ridiculous and I can't trust anything else you say. But actually rise of Skywalker was my favorite Star Wars not because it had the best characters.

But I watched Star Wars for action. Yeah, some of the philosophy of the force Firestrikes back really captured that the best that's my favorite. Yeah, but when I watched the last of the Skywalker saga I'm not looking for something deep and penetrating.

I'm looking to go out with a bang and enjoy myself. It had action. We already know the characters so I don't need a long explanation. It was fast-paced and I and it it feels like it would have you know, I can see myself watching it multiple times.

Yeah, I've seen it three times already and it actually gets better each time so. Yeah in some regards. It's the best Star Wars movie ever. But the original trilogy was great because the story was cohesive this this last trilogy wasn't thanks to Ryan Johnson, so.

Yeah, man, come on, you know, it would have been interesting to see what he would have done with an entire trilogy. But we didn't really have a trilogy here. I think. So, yeah, I love Star Wars and in fact on my website I did an article called five reasons why the force is strong with the rise of Skywalker and I tie it into some Theology and also man the Mandalorian.

Definitely, he's become my favorite Star Wars character and the entire saga. He's my favorite character and I did an article called ten reasons why the Mandalorian is my favorite Star Wars character. So anybody wants to check those out?

You can go to free thinking ministries comm and check this and I definitely I tie it most of the ten reasons. Have theological Significance so and I could just interject real quick what I like about and I really do suggest people to check out free thinking ministries.

Is it ministry or ministries? Ministries. Ministries. Yeah, what I love what you're able to do is to tie in pop culture with theological issues. And that's that's really hard because theology could be really dry.

Right, and I think you do a very good job in capturing theological themes and philosophical themes within movies. Like the Avengers or something like that when I was watching the endgame and I was thinking about The doctor strange I was thinking Someone should write an article.

No way Doctor strange, which I thought was again even as a Calvinist and I don't hold to. Yeah, brilliant and it was a creative way to explain that Perspective using a popular medium like like a big movie like like Avengers.

So I thought that was no people should really check out your website. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. So yeah, I guess you know all of that to say, you know, it's probably my biggest disagreement with James White The Star Trek versus Star Wars.

So yes, you know, I agree. Yeah, but but in all seriousness, I want to say this about Dr. White. I think he gets a lot of things, right and You know his work for example. It's been several years now but if I remember correctly there's somebody came into my office when I was still at the church and they were telling me that King James only or they you know, the King James version was the only Bible that we ought to use and I believe I gave him dr. White's material on why that's a Bad view.

Maybe watching this on YouTube when I post it, but this bad boy here, right? Yep. That's exactly it. Yeah only controversy. Excellent. That's it. Excellent book. Yeah, so I think he does great work in that field.

Let's see what else he he's done some great work with or against cults and against Islam. So keep up the great work there and actually I shared some of his stuff on on my social media. In fact a video he did against abortion.

Well, he's actually I think speaking to the City Council in his area or something like that gave a fantastic Talk, I'll tell you what. I will stand side-by-side next to him and oppose Those who advocate abortion the greatest evils to ever exist on this planet, you know, he and I are on the same page.

So, I mean I could go to down the line, I'm sure there's other things that We would agree upon and I just want to say I think he's a brilliant mind and a great scholar and in fact on the free thinking ministries site, I didn't write it, but there was a Another author who wrote who asked me if he could write an article defending James White when he was I thought unfairly attacked.

So anyway, I just want to make it clear that although I disagree with James White on the Calvinism versus Mulanism debate that I really do respect. Dr. White and We've had a little interaction After article that I wrote before I even started free thinking ministries.

Probably about four or five years ago now. But I would look forward to talking to them again someday. I think we'd get along Quite nicely, but I'll just say this when it comes to Mulanism I do think he's working with let's just call it an incomplete set of data.

Which I think leads him to reach some false conclusions on the topic. So I hope our conversation today can you know kind of set the record straight? Maybe we can complete his data set. Tim had expressed to me that once we did the interview with dr. White that he was watching the video and taking copious notes.

And he was doing this on Christmas Day. Family is so cool that they're okay with him watching theological material on Christmas Day I think is. They weren't just cool with it, I mean so my mom and dad Actually wanted to watch the whole thing with me and and I actually had to leave to get back to my wife's side of the family.

We got about I don't know halfway through it maybe and my parents continued watching it without me, and they you know they called me. When they got done like yeah, we finished it and so Yeah, my family you know we're full of Theological nerds, I guess awesome my parents had a big impact on me growing up.

Yeah, so so Yeah, you know I will say that I I think he's working With an incomplete set of data. My only criticism is I think he bears Some responsibility for that because I think the the data is out there.

But I know that I do the same thing too. And there's a lot of things that we just don't have time to be an expert. Everything you could only say so much to when giving a criticism you can't offer all of the ground.

And I think I think some of the responsibility is on is on those who misunderstand and should know better, and I'm not saying We'll let you give the criticism, and we'll people can take it for what it is and look into it, but I think for people who are Interested in these topics and really are interested in getting down to the issues.

There's a responsibility for them to actually go and read the material. I don't think that people's theological training should merely be watching YouTube videos and people critiquing other people those are helpful.

People really need to get down to the nitty-gritty and a little bit and kind of look at the sources and allow both sides to kind of Have that context where they're able to spread out the entirety of their view.

Which takes work by the listener to actually dig into those issues? You know because a lot of objections that people have against Calvinism that people have against Molin ism. Some of them could be answered if they avail themselves of the literature instead of just isolating their exposure to it by Watching YouTube videos and things like that, so I think it's a little bit of both the audience and the people interacting on these Important ideas.

Defining Mere Molinism and Middle Knowledge

Yeah, I agree. Well. I'll tell you yeah. Is it or is that all right. Eli if before I start talking about? White's comments, I noticed a couple things that you said if you don't mind I'd like to address those that you said during your interview.

Are they way of critique? But maybe encouragement a little bit, okay, I mean Begin with you from a Molin is perspective defining Molin ism for us. And then maybe you can share that and then we can go from there well I I do have it and my list of things to say that properly define Molin ism, but I guess yeah, so I mean one thing you said and the reason why I think this is important is Because sometimes I feel the same way.

But you and I think many others do as well, but you've made a comment that. That you felt like you might be. What did you say drowning in philosophical waters? Yes like that and And I think um I Think that's I mean I felt like that too I was a Calvinist when I first heard about Molin ism, and I first heard dr. Craig talk about it.

I think this was in 2010 or maybe slightly before and anyway, I devoted almost a year of my life to try to refute it. Because I was a Calvinist. I was a five-point Calvinist who also affirmed what I call exhaustive divine determinism and.

And so I wanted once I found out what Molin ism was I wanted to refute it. And I studied it for so long and and it just the philosophy I did feel like I was starting to drown and these Philosophical waters, but then you know I kind of felt like I was getting swimming lessons along the way.

And I became a stronger swimmer in philosophy and really namely logic and so I I just want to encourage people and to even if you're feeling like you're drowning in these Logical waters to till they're tough waters to swim in but I think as Christians We should try to become the strongest logical swimmers We can you know and so I?

Feel your pain it is deep philosophical logical waters at times. But I think Christians are I think and Eli I think you are a good thinker. I think you do quite nicely when it comes to philosophy and and logic so I just want to want to encourage you to Continue swimming in those waters and and your listeners as well, but it is tough.

It is a tough Tough subject the other thing is you mentioned something about Inconsistent exegesis or that you heard dr. White bring that up in a debate. He was having with another friend of mine and Who's not a molinus we're talking about Leighton flowers, I don't believe Leighton would Classify himself as a Molinist.

I don't know for sure. He sees it as a viable option amongst the various ways that you could understand right issues, right? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, so he's very friendly to it. But you know I don't want to get into this right now, but the first chapter of my dissertation as Showing how I believe that Molinism does the best job of Keeping a consistent hermeneutic throughout the entirety of Scripture.

So maybe when the dissertations released you can have me on to discuss that topic. Yeah, that'd be great. Yeah, cool very cool. So I just want to get that out of the way. Okay, but uh all right, so let's let's go to some things that I dr. White said.

Well real quick. Yeah, you want to define Molinism first? Let's see and by the way I'm just I'm just saying that from a listeners perspective. But you can feel free to go whatever if you think there's a different route you want to go that might be more helpful.

Well, no we can do that, and I'll probably get back to this sure. But I like to start with what I call mere Molinism. Okay, and I think it's pretty easy to define mere Molinism. Excuse me mere Molinism entails two essential ingredients.

Which if one can be proven to be false then the entire system is going to collapse so. Yeah mere Molinism two essentials one Logically prior to God's decision to create the world God knew everything that would happen in any possible scenario He could create and this if that's true.

Then this entails middle knowledge and two as beings created in the image of God humans like God Possess libertarian freedom which simply means the ability to choose between a range of options each compatible with one's nature so That's how I define mere Molinism is by offering those two essential Ingredients, so I have a question.

Yeah, so I I mean I guess I'll mention names. But I'm not gonna. I don't want to put words in their mouth, but I had spoken to Eric Hernandez who's a Molinist mm-hmm, and he helped me out a lot in understanding view of God's omniscience.

But it didn't necessarily entail anything about libertarian freedom in just its bare definition like right it applies so so would you say that middle knowledge and The issue of libertarian freedom are two essential features of Molinism, or can you have?

Molinism without libertarian freedom you can have so I I'm good friends with Eric. You can you can use? A. So middle knowledge is What's real middle knowledge is required here, but if Molinism is actually true that if it actually Describes reality then humans will possess libertarian freedom, and so that's what I'm talking about when it comes to mere Molinism now.

And one thing I'm going to talk about with something that dr. White said later on is you know he says that I can't remember I have it in my notes as we we go I'll make sure I get it right, but he says that it assumes the reality of free creatures that middle knowledge does and that's just not true.

You can have a completely determined world completely determined Creatures across the board and God could still have middle knowledge If he possesses the power to create free creatures even if even if he never does.

Because then if he's omniscient. So so if God possesses the power to create a free creature Even if he never does and God just determines creatures across the board, but he could have created a free creature.

Well if he's if he's omniscient, and he knows how that free creature would have freely chosen. Then he's got middle knowledge, but I don't think Molinism is true. I just think middle knowledge is true at that point.

So I just argue for those two essentials that if Molinism describes reality the way things are then God will have middle knowledge and humans will possess libertarian freedom and Libertarian freedom it can be defined several different ways right you've got source hood libertarian freedom which even if for some weird and strange reason no one could actually choose otherwise, but if they are the real source of Their choices Then you've still got libertarian freedom.

So you make a distinction between Molinism and middle knowledge. It seemed they sounded like you made a distinction. Oh, yeah Molinism requires middle knowledge. So if mere Molinism is true what I argue for mere Molinism is true Then God has middle knowledge and humans possess libertarian freedom and that and usually I mean because there's It's Calvinists who believe that God has middle knowledge.

You know and there's determinists who could also believe that God has middle knowledge. You know there could be exhaustive divine determinists who also affirm that God's got middle knowledge so. So for Molinism, for mere Molinism to Describe reality the way things are God needs middle knowledge and humans need libertarian freedom and typically so I said there's several ways to understand libertarian freedom you got source hood.

And I think source hood is vital, but I also define libertarian freedom as the ability to choose between a range of options of alternative options each compatible with human nature or each compatible with an image of God nature, so.

Anyway, so that's mere Molinism, and I can say more about that later as we as we go on sure so Let's let's define Molinism for someone who hasn't listened to the previous thing. And we don't have to stand the definition too long.

Just let us define our terms first. And then maybe we could jump right into some of the things that you thought that dr. White was off on in his criticism, and then of course if people are familiar. If they're not familiar with what he disagreed with they can go back and listen to the original content.

Okay, okay, so I just did define Molinism as those two essentials. That's just central so you said they said middle knowledge and and Libertarian freedom. Humans because I guess maybe I missed it did you describe the three moments of God's knowledge in that oh not yet?

But I'll get to that. Yeah, right right right yeah, I I will get to that so. So yeah, I think you know some of the preliminary comments here that dr. White made. And this isn't an exact quote I don't think but basically saying that we're complaining that not all Molinists from the same flavor of Molinism you know because he's talking about he wants to debate dr. Craig and Others will say well, okay, dr. Craig believes that about Molinism, but you need to talk to this Molinist and.

You know so yeah, it's true. Not all Molinists are created equal and You know I'm friends with many Molinists, and we disagree on several aspects of Molinism. But you know quickly I'd say the same is true for for Calvinists.

You know I think it's probably worse than the Calvinist camp. Maybe I don't know maybe I'd like your thoughts on that, but you know there's disagreement on the five points. You mean you got five-point Calvinists and four-point Calvinists, and you know the five-point Calvinists will say well.

You're not really a Calvinist, and you know that goes back and forth, but there's also five-point Calvinists who also affirm Limited libertarian freedom. So not only is there disagreement regarding the five points, but you have those who affirm all five points.

But who disagree on exhaustive divine determinism and limited libertarian freedom, and you know and Calvinists who affirm libertarian freedom in a limited sense would include guys like Oliver Crisp and Mueller and Kevin Tempe, and you know he's told me and in some aspects He would consider himself a Calvinist.

Alan Plantinga Greg Kochel the stand a reason Is a great example these guys are all examples of Calvinists who affirm? Limited libertarian freedom. In fact I know some Calvinists who also affirm Molinism.

For example Kirk McGregor's wife. You know she's in the Presbyterian Church and as a minister in the Presbyterian Church. She she affirms Calvinism five-point Calvinism and also affirms Molinism if I understand Kirk correctly so.

At least what I refer to as mere Molinism, and and how I described it so um. So I want to get that out there, but the next of White's comments that I think demand a response is when he mentioned that William Lane Craig won't debate him.

And and dr. Craig. He's kind of been like a mentor to me. But you know dr. Craig has had it as a policy for a long time that he doesn't want to debate Fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and an academic forum like he does against you know guys like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris and and guys like that he wants to show that atheism is false in the public square.

He wants to show that Christianity Is true in the public square, and he doesn't want to get sidetracked. He knows his mission and He wants to stay focused on that but You know White went on to say that Something like that he couldn't find anybody who's I think he said really representative of Molinism.

Who's willing to debate him on the topic and you know? Kirk McGregor Who literally wrote the book on Molina? And in my opinion Is the leading expert in all things Molinism today because unlike dr. Craig Molinism is really his primary focus.

He is ready and willing to debate dr. White and in fact I believe McGregor has reached out to White's camp to let to let him know that he is willing to have this discussion now if He hasn't got that message.

You know pass that along to him that Kirk McGregor would love to have that conversation with him. And you know also if he wants to get close to debating dr. Craig well Kirk like me we're both licensed reasonable faith chapter directors under dr. Craig so.

Yeah, I think Kirk McGregor is the guy. And I'd be willing to have that conversation too, but really Kirk is I I always thought and of course dr White is free to debate whomever he wants just as dr. Craig has his goal and mission.

I'm sure right white has his own goal, and what he wants to focus on. But if he really wanted to debate the issue of Molinism, I would see a debate with dr. McGregor as a strategic move in Getting dr. Craig's attention as to some of the serious criticisms that if they're that serious and don't hold up against someone like dr. McGregor maybe dr. Craig would comment on that and maybe have some maybe not even a debate kind of like My kind of my dream Interaction would be dr. Craig and dr. I'm kind of down discussion kind of like what he did with Lawrence Krauss on the topic of Bolinism and Calvinism and then a separate talk on apologetic methodology.

I think those two great and interesting more kind of in a casual setting although in a perfect world right this I Think he's very I think he's very Equipped to debate those issues with dr. White, and I just wish That that was an option, but be that as it may we're talking about it and so If we can't get two people to debate these issues.

Then why not just talk about it and have the dialogue going where people can interact with these ideas to their ability. So yeah I agree. So all right, let's jump in so so what are some of the specific areas that because we really haven't touched at the core complaint of dr. White.

What did you perceive his core complaint against Molin isn't to be and once you lay that out. How would you respond to those critiques? Well, you know the first thing is defining Molin ism. You know in your interview you asked to define it and Dr.. White said something to the effect of you know we don't have enough time for that.

Well, I've already defined it. It didn't take very long. It only takes a few seconds. And I think it's dangerous when we don't define what we're going to attack. Because we don't define things that we're attacking.

It's really easy to attack a straw man. And not the real thing, and I think that's what happened. So again Basically I mean to keep it very simple to affirm mere Molin ism is. You know I mean, there's two things that are essential to Molin ism.

I already mentioned them. And that's you know every Molinist worthy of the label is going to affirm these two things God's middle knowledge and human libertarian freedom. And again, I'll say it again this to clarify mere Molin ism entails two essential ingredients.

One logically prior to God's decision to create the world God knew everything that would happen in any possible scenario He could create and this entails God's middle knowledge. And two as beings created in the image of God humans like God possessed libertarian freedom.

Which simply means the ability to choose between a range of options each compatible with one's nature. Actually doesn't even mean that much like I said you could just have source said libertarian but that's the the definition of free will that I spend the most time defending is the ability to choose between a range of options each Compatible with one's nature and like I said with you know when we're talking about humanity our image of nature which allows us to do this so.

So the debate really needs to begin here with those two essential pillars or ingredients if you will but Let's see Just real quick you Your definition of libertarian freedom for those who are more philosophically subtle in their definitions what you've defined is soft Libertarian freedom we don't have to go into the soft and hard differences.

But am I correct that there's a difference between hard libertarianism and soft libertarianism. You just defined soft libertarianism, right? Well, you know it depends on who you talk to and I Just like to keep it simple because I think when you get in a hard and soft that confuses people.

So Yeah, I just you know the the most essential thing to libertarian freedom is if there is no external causal determinants deterministic factor so. Yeah, if I am the source of even some of my thoughts and it's not somehow either directly or indirectly causally determined by someone or something else if I can actually think and evaluate.

Concept. If I can actually think and evaluate a concept Say the concept of libertarian freedom or the concept of middle knowledge. If I am doing that on my own and nothing else is doing that for me. Then I've got libertarian freedom, even if for some reason I cannot think otherwise or do otherwise if I am the source.

Then I've got libertarian freedom. But like I said, I'm more interested in arguing for. You know, some people say say this is a fancy way of saying the ability to do otherwise I just like to say hey if you've got the ability to choose between a range of options each of which is Compatible with your image of God nature, then you've got libertarian freedom, okay.

So what so what specifically? Okay, so we have libertarian freedom you defined it the way the way you did. Yeah, what is the specific objection of dr? Why. I think because because for example when you talk about libertarian free acts and you talk about God's knowledge of counter Counterfactuals of creaturely freedom which exists logically prior to his divine decree I think what he was getting at is how is that possible?

How is their knowledge of what a creature would do independent of a decree? It would seem as though in order for God to know what someone would do He would know what they would do because that is a world that he would have decreed.

There seems to be this idea that there are the truth values of what this hypothetical creature would do. But it's independent of a decree which which really acts as the creative plans and intentions that God desires to carry out.

How would you respond to that what we call the grounding objection? Yeah? Well, I've got a lot to say on this and I've written out a whole bunch of things I want to get to and that's down on my list, but I'll quickly Know it, but just know that I'm gonna get to more of this later if you don't mind.

But that's a how question. That's a interaction objection. And you know theologian including Calvinists are fine with appealing to some mystery here and there. But I would say if one denies Well it comes down to this this God is an omnipotent God.

Have the power right the ability and the power to create a being in His image who can make choices who can choose between a range of options each compatible with His image of God nature. Does God have the ability and the power to create that being?

Now if he if he doesn't then God's not omnipotent. I Don't think he wants to go there, but if he does it raises another question. Does God possess the knowledge. Does he have the intelligence to know what this free creature within God's Ability to create.

Does this free creature that God could create? Who would possess? Libertarian freedom. Does God then possess the knowledge of how this free creature would freely choose even if God never creates him. Now once I know Then they're denying Omniscience well that assumes it seems to me That the notion of a person who can choose certain things they can choose certain things.

You can correct me if I'm wrong Independent of a decree that God could have knowledge of what these person people would do Independent of a decree so no I affirmed the decree. But God's knowledge is count is logically prior to the decree so I guess the question is How do we make sense out of what a person would do.

Logically prior to decree it seems like what they would do as a result of God Decreeing a world in which they use their Their God-given ability to do precisely what they do. All right, so the bottom line is this does God have the power to create a free creature?

Well depends well it would say that that does God have the power to create a libertarian free creature. That's the question. Personally, I don't know because I don't know if it's I Don't know if it's a coherent concept because oh, let me stop you there.

It's got to be a coherent concept unless It's got to be a coherent concept if God's omnipotent because omnipotence by definition means that God has options and It stands to reason that God does not do all that he's powerful enough to do I?

Mean for example God could have at least not created the universe. Obviously we know he did since we're having this conversation but to say that God had to create this universe would Bring us into some severe theological problems.

God doesn't need us. He was completely Fine without us. And it's a it's just by grace alone that he chose to create so God has a range of options each of which is Compatible with his divine nature. He can at least Create or not create and he chose to create so God has libertarian freedom.