Molinism

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed to Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Opening Remarks and Listener Questions

And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning or whenever you happen to be listening. We know a lot of people listen on the podcast and sometimes people are listening. You know months and even years later and they'll pop into channel and say hey, what did you mean when you said this?

When I said what I said that really? Oh, okay. That's interesting. It's fresh on their mind, but not exactly fresh on mine, so, you know, who knows but Anyway, 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 is the phone number 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1.

Saw some interesting stuff on YouTube earlier today and Some of those folks may be calling in. I don't know hard to hard to see. I we did have one caller or one individual. Who was in essence? Saying he's over in the London area he was in essence saying that no one before Augustin ever mentioned anything about election or anything like that and I I Just immediately popped into channel some citations from Clement of Rome one of the earliest post New Testament writings referring to the elect and I think he actually just called a few minutes ago, but didn't want to go on the air.

So, oh, well, maybe at some other point that will take place. Who knows but we do have a number of phone calls already and Once we clear them we may have I remember last time I mentioned Listening to Tim Staples talking about Islam and we never got to Tim Staples talking about Islam.

So maybe we'll get to that. Who knows but let's. Let's go ahead and I'm assuming this is the first one up. I don't see anything changing the little green lights flashing. So I'm hoping that's the right one.

Rich is looking rather confused in there. Yeah, there's there's two people. They're both ready to go only one of them's flashing though for some reason I don't know why so let's talk with Rob. Hi, Rob.

Hi, doctor. What are you doing today? I'm doing good. Good. Glad to hear it. It's about Romans chapter 13 and I know you a couple of two or three weeks ago. You were talked different in a different vein and went back and I hadn't said him to be In behind the art curtain and or even movements, you know in Asia or and In a movement against an oppressive, yeah.

Well, I'll confess that's an area that I claim absolutely no special expertise in whatsoever. There are entire books and schools of thought and everything else on the subject that I have not read and and hence don't have any particular expertise upon which to speak.

I think that all I can all I can say and answer the question like that is That it seems that the division that is offered by Scripture Is that unless one is commanded to do that which is against? His faith his confession of faith if he is commanded to Engage in activities that are opposed to his faith.

He is commanded to renounce Christ or to not obey God in some way shape or form that that one is To be focused upon one's Christian faith rather than upon the overthrow of that government. I mean clearly during the days of the Apostles there were all Sorts of things that the Roman government was doing that would be considered unjust on the basis of all sorts of political theories, I would assume.

But the fact the matter is that I see nothing in the New Testament where the Apostles instructed people To in some way shape or form overthrow that government. At the same time they you know, you do have to slaves if you can if you can become free become free.

You know, there's all sorts of questions about you know, what can a Christian person do? Within the context of Having public office or whatever and there seems to have been some Christians who had public office, but most did not.

I mean the Christian movement was very much amongst slavery, but Outside of those general comments. I don't have anything specific. That's anything more than that that I could offer. That's overly useful.

I mean apart from that, I mean, I guess maybe you might have answer in this as well. But the question came up, you know, I mean and I realized who live in the US. What about like for example, you know not long ago in this people brought up.

Well, you know the governmental authorities even like in 1776 George the colonial authorities. Wouldn't that also have been rebellion or lawlessness either? I I know that I know of Christians who have said exactly that but again, I.

It's not an area of my study. I don't have anything. I Apologize. Not. Not an area of my study. It has nothing to do with this. I'm Arabic right now.

So I mean, I mean I mean because the question came up being if that would be a fourth of July I mean in in light of the fact that maybe that was you know.

Well, but the fourth of July was was in reference to a claim in regards to The necessity of a government to be responsive to its people that wasn't the Boston Tea Party or something. So I think I think a person can be thankful for what God has done through the United States the blessings that he's placed upon the United States, but I'm not one of those folks that Believes that somehow the United States is a Christian nation that somehow You know is almost like Israel or something.

You know that that there does seem to be among some people the same kind of language you find in the Old Testament. Where? The temple the temple the Lord would never allow the destruction of the temple blah blah blah blah.

And the fact the matter is this nation will be destroyed if it continues to spit in the face of God and and to Coddle those who you know who hate his hate his ways and so on so forth. So so I am concerned about those who do come up seemingly with the idea.

That's Nothing could ever happen here because this is the you know the great United States, and that's just right simply not the case.

So right because you know the issue about Christian nation because I know in some circles. That's very controversial, but you know are we a Christian nation. Are we not estimate? You know if it's the nation who's God of the Lord and they think that fits right a holy nation, but that's well.

The nation is a spiritual entity not a political well.

You know I don't think there's any question that any that that a nation as in a political state Will be blessed when it recognizes God's law and seeks to govern in light of God's law. And and it will not be when it seeks to do otherwise so I think there's a direct relationship there and clearly this nation.

Has in the past been willing to openly acknowledge biblical parameters many presidents up until this This time period were willing to quote from the Bible and so on so forth openly now. That's just simply not allowed now.

That's that's considered to be a terrible horrible thing and right and so. But does that mean that it was quote-unquote a Christian nation back then well? There's all sorts of different answers of that, and I'm afraid I'm I make no no claims to expertise in that area, but hey, thanks your phone call Rob.

I appreciate it. Let's we've got lots callers here for some reason this morning. Sometimes Tuesday's nothing and then sometimes there's lots of stuff. I don't know let's talk to Tim. Hi Tim.

Hello, Tim. Hello. How are you? Hi? I'm very good. Thanks. I want to thank you for your ministry. I found you about a year and a year and a half ago, and you've really Challenged and taught me in a number of ways.

Good here. Thank you. Well, so I am a persuaded five-point Calvinist, and I'm trying to dig deeper into the word on the matters of faith work boasting and monergism and. So my question concerns Ephesians 2 8 to 10 and at the end of Romans 3.

You know 2 8 to 10 Paul taught it. We've been saved. This is not our accomplishment. It's a gift of God. Theologians find monergism in these verses. This is not if you're doing refers to the whole phrase saved by grace through faith.

We can lose the monergistic gift and we would be able to boast in our faith. Is that a fair?

Yeah, I yeah I think that's fairly fair to say is that the reason that there is no boasting is that it's it's uke X ergo. Ergo, and it's not from works. It's not of something that we have done. It is all on God's initiative.

It is all God's work and hence any boasting Cannot be in any accomplishment of our own but only in the accomplishments of Christ.

Right the question or the the difficulty that I'm trying to work through in 327 to 28 He presses the point that if we're I'm I lost you. When you said we have grounds of boasting in Ephesians 2 Where does it say that?

But see, but he doesn't say that all he all he says in Ephesians chapter 2 is that all of this comes from God. When he says not by works, that's the the human aspects and so all this comes by it from from God.

Then there is no ground of boasting outside of boasting in God. I mean we do boast in God. That's that's that's first. Corinthians chapter 1 Says our boasting is in God. So in in both texts you're being told that there is nothing in and of ourselves that Provides us with a ground of saying I somehow have done something that other people have not done.

As I've said many times in in heaven itself someday when we when we see the final decision the final judgment of God. Those who are in places of punishment and those who are in places of glory. The only thing that will differentiate both those two is the work of God.

It is that five-letter word called grace and so. There's there's nothing about well Faith gives you somehow since you can have it and somebody else doesn't have it gives you a ground of boasting. That's that's not the point that is being being made in each one of these texts.

The point is this is all of God. It is not of man. And and it is not something we have done that causes us to differ from somebody else. It's God who's made us to differ and therefore all the boasting has to be in what he has done.

Yeah, so I don't I don't see that the the the the hypothesis from Ephesians 2 actually stands.

I mean the the point that the having trouble is is when we When we criticize our minion view of faith where something that in some way comes Comes from us and and we say that that would be a ground for boasting Armenians or say say that one reason we should reject our mini-ism is it would give us if everyone had that capability and we.

Somehow were better than someone else. Yeah, right well.

So when I'm looking at Romans 3 it seems to even even deny the idea that that because if it's by work. That's right. If it if salvation is by faith apart. Even the idea that faith would be an accomplishment that we could boast after any view.

Well, there's there's again. All that's being said in in each text and and you're trying to make the two texts address the same issue. And that's where the error is coming in. You're confusing context.

Paul is not addressing the same issue in in both contexts. He's not using the terms in exactly the same way you're assuming that making an assumption on one and then creating a Contradiction that just just doesn't exist.

His assertion in Ephesians 2 is that everything in? Salvation comes from God not from works therefore no one can boast in Romans 3 especially talking about Jews who would have Reason to say they have a special relationship with God.

Instead he says boasting is excluded not by a by what kind of law by a lot kind of love works. No. But by a law of faith faith has nothing in of itself that it can boast of so. The two aren't addressing the same issue and only by sort of trying to bring them together and force and address the same issue.

Do you create any kind of issue?

Okay so in in in just the context of Ephesians to you conclude that would be asserting that would be something that we could consider a work.

We have to we have to be very careful. Again, I have often asserted that everything in Ephesians 2 way it comes from God including the faith. But that does not mean that Paul's specific intention in those words is to be addressing all the conflicts that we want to try to address.

We can we can look at what he's saying. But you you only you can only hold Paul to be consistent for what Paul is speaking about you can draw Conclusions from what he's saying and if you have other basis for putting that all together, that's great fine wonderful, but He's not trying to talk about that.

He's simply saying everything that brings us into salvation the grace. The faith everything comes from God. It's a gift of God. It's not of works. It's not something we merited. It's not something makes us better than somebody else lest anyone should boast that that's all he's that's all he's saying.

So to try to go beyond that and say well, you know. Maybe Paul's also addressing this. No, you you've got to allow Everything to stay in context. You can't Necessarily be be trying to go beyond that and I think that's I think that's what I'm hearing us doing here Is is trying to make application beyond that?

I don't see any conflict whatsoever between what Paul says in Romans 3 and Ephesians 2. Okay.

I'll continue thinking about that. Okay in light of those comments. Okay. Thanks, Tim. All right.

All right, let's move on and talk with Richard. Hi Richard.

Doing all right. I used to be a Reformed person actually, I've followed you since I was in high school. But I've come across a lot of middle knowledge literature, and I know that You have quite a bit of disagreement with that system.

And so I wanted to get your thoughts on a few things and maybe discuss some of it. I don't claim to have enough knowledge to cater anything like that, but I do would appreciate your advice. Have you are you aware of Bruce wears?

Work on that. He's a guy. I believe it's Southern Baptist University in Kentucky. Yes. I'm about the seminary actually yes, and He holds to middle knowledge, but from a reformed perspective and before I do anything else I just want your thoughts on that first if you have any.

Well.

I that'd be the first time I've ever heard Bruce wear called a Molinist. That would be deeply disappointing to me if he if that were the case. Because I think for the listeners we need to define Molin as a Molin ism as a Jesuit theology Developed specifically in response to the Reformation.

It's an anti-reformation Philosophy that was created by the Jesuit theologian Molina de Molina in response to the call by the founder of the Jesuits to find a way to Blunt and to deal with the proclamation of the gospel by the Reformed Churches and He developed this Philosophy and it is primarily a philosophy I it is interesting to note that as You know, I I'm not sure if you're the one who wrote this but I had a note on my screen I think someone had sent this into the to the website.

It specifically says Molin ism isn't a parlor trick. I believe it's the clear teaching of Scripture. Well Evidently the first person to come up with that didn't come up with that until the late 1500s.

And so 1500 years worth of Christians had missed the clear teaching of Scripture. I believe that Molin ism and The attendant theologies attached to it is an external philosophy forced upon Scripture. It was never derived from the exegesis of the text of Scripture in in any way shape or form.

It is a philosophy that is meant to find a way to maintain The necessary assertion of free will so the Roman Catholic sacramental system can remain the Roman Catholic sacramental system that was the the great problem that Rome had with the proclamation the sovereignty of God and salvation is That if that is the case then then Rome's entire religious authority is based upon the sacramental system and the control that that gives her over the grace of God and hence over the people who come to her to obtain that grace of God and So there was a deep necessity to find some way to reestablish this kind of libertarianism So that the sacramental system could could survive now the irony is That Molin ism has primarily died out in Roman Catholicism and has primarily been reputed within Roman Catholicism, but it has now been picked up by Arminianism and turned into an entire system Bereft of its historical connection to the The the historical context out of which it arose but now it has has become the the The darling of the Arminians as a means to try to hold together the concept of libertarianism as well as a concept of God's sovereignty through this promulgation of a theory of Of a kind of knowledge that God has in a very meticulous Control that in essence In God has the has some type of an ability to know what men will do Given certain circumstances and so he works the circumstances so that they do what they desire to do freely but the results are still what God wants to do, etc, etc, and So that's for mainly for the listeners.

I'm would imagine that you're aware of its historical background and its Origination and the essence of its of its assertions.

Yeah, I'm aware of the historical background of it, but And I have a deep respect for PE, I'm not aware I don't have a problem with it as long as it's part of the script. I'm assuming you're referring to the purse.

I'm assuming you're referring the perseverance of the Saints and you would be of course incorrect about that because Anyone who is familiar with Augustine knows that Augustine did believe in the perseverance of the elect not of those who were non elect and Many in the early church did not even address the issue, but there's no question.

There's absolutely no question that the vast majority of writers Throughout church history have exceptionally sub biblical theologies on all sorts of things. That doesn't change the fact that when it came to this issue Which was an issue that have been discussed many times this particular concept is not exegetically driven.

You you can't possibly be asserting That you read Isaiah, and you come up with middle knowledge you you read John and you come up with middle knowledge this is this is a Concept that it has to be created outside the text of Scripture, and then certain texts are read in its light and Then those very strong texts on Providence are then subsumed under this overarching System, but you're never going to come to that simply by the exegesis of the text of Scripture.

You have to create that externally and then it has to become your guiding parameters of interpretation. That's Certainly been my experience with all the Molinas with whom I've had conversation is when I say okay I I see you applying it to a text here applying it to a text there.

Where do you derive it from and It's it's it's always driven from Philosophical considerations it does not derive from any kind of biblical presentation at all.

Okay. If you could be one example the idea of know right and that's and that's the point. Immediately. Any any.

Overarching doctrine of God that has to start in 1st Samuel doesn't that immediately ring bells. I Mean we're looking if we're immediately skipping past all the the huge number of texts where you see Historically Christians have derived their theology from the text the Bible that are specifically teaching it in other words I have often used the analogy that if you want to know about the lights in your car You get out the owner's manual and the first thing you do is you look up lights now the lights may be May be mentioned in all sorts of sections.

It might be mentioned the electrical section might be mentioned battery maintenance. It might be mentioned in the safety section that's fine, but you start with the section on the lights and then you interpret everything else in light of that and What I see happening here is that what the those who promote middle knowledge what they do is they'll go to specific historical incidences and They'll take this external thing which again I keep going and where did we get that from the Bible?

But it's actually been created outside the Bible. They bring it in say see this might work in this historical text where there might be some questions about what someone might have done rather than going Historically as Christians have done up until the Jesuit creation of this concept and that is they've gone to those texts where God is Demonstrating that he is God and he is demonstrating that he is God over against false gods and thereby he's saying here's what the true God is like and this is what false gods can't do and so you go to the the chapter after chapter after chapter after chapter of Discussion of the nature of God found in the prophet Isaiah and Where he is contrasting the true God versus the false gods and that's where you find God saying tell me what's going to happen in the future and Tell me what happened in the past and why it happened and so we can look at that and we can then encounter those texts to talk about how God interacts with Cyrus and How Cyrus is going to let the people go and You have the whole concept of prophecy and the fact that God says I know what's gonna happen the future I can tell you what's gonna happen the future and if it doesn't happen that I'm that that proves that the person claiming this isn't a true prophet and So the future becomes something that is fully and completely known to God and that reveals the accomplishment of his purposes.

Not merely a cooperative effort, etc, etc. And so that's where you go first and You derive your theology of God and then apply it to historical situations that are not specifically written to address those things.

But again, if you start with an external system and bring it in. Then you can apply it to anything and and make pretty much almost any type of system work that way. The problem is I challenge someone to demonstrate that this system was derived from the exegesis of the text of Scripture and not the other way around.

If if it's external then go ahead admit it and say well, you know what? No one really had a clue what was going on In these in any of these texts until the Jesuits figured it out as a response to the Reformation in the 16th century.

And if you know someone wants to be straight up front and say that Cool. Then then they can go ahead and say that and I think that most people will immediately go. Oh, wait a minute that that doesn't make a lick of sense.

But I you know, do you really think Mullen ISM? Derived its origination from from someone coming to the Word of God saying this is the inspired utterances of God and I am going to to Be limited to its revelation for what I conclude about the nature of God is is that how you think Molina got that?

But I would be hesitant to Throw out the baby with the bathwater just because I'd have come with a wrong approach. I think. No matter who it is if they come up with something that is valid scripturally It does not go against what the Word of God says.

But do you see the difference. Did you see the difference there. Because you see there's a vast chasm between. Well something that's valuable scripturally and doesn't go against scripture is a very different thing from saying something that was derived from Scripture.

This was not derived from scripture. Well, he is the originator of it and I'm just. Okay, let's forget about Molina William Legg Craig. It's still an external Concept that is being used as the interpretive grid over scripture.

But it itself does not derive from scripture. That is to me the great danger because that's not the only external philosophical system that people have developed to. Smooth out the things that they don't like about what the scriptures state.

Okay, you know the open theist do this the exact same thing.

Foundations for Christian worldview. But I was curious. How what would you classify the knowledge of God since you wouldn't classify it as a middle knowledge. Where he states, you know, if this would have happened if I had these circumstances you would have done this.

It was not actual. I mean didn't happen. So how would you classify? that knowledge.

Well, I don't know what terminology to use you know God can interact with us and deal with us in such a way as to accomplish his purposes. I like to try to stay biblical on these things because once you start down that road of trying to create all sorts of categories For hypotheticals that you then apply to scripture I just haven't found the people who do that to be overly committed to the authority of the text or the knowledge of the text or the defense.

The text just hasn't been my experience and So I am very very concerned that when people start going down that road the functional result is that the clear statements where God says I accomplish all of my will and I change the hearts and I take out hearts of stone and I put in hearts of flesh and I do I the Lord do all these things become completely transmuted into an assertion that in essence well, I Do what I'm allowed to do and I micromanage events so that like a like rats in a cage you do what I want you to do, but it's only because I micromanage the Physical world so that you're placed within particular contexts that you will do these particular things.

I I don't even begin to profess to understand how that could possibly work and it will seem to understanding. That's right.

From my understanding I'm always and teaches that God decreed it from Point of creation onward and it's not necessarily Micromanaging but it's a decree in a similar vein to what reform theology would say.

It's a reform system, but it's the same exact Decree. Nothing can happen with the outside of God's decree or will.

Well, yeah, I understand that it is it is a philosophical attempt to avoid the recognition of the slavery of man's will to sin. Yeah, I I Recognize that I I just simply say It is a philosophical system derived from outside of scripture that I see absolutely no reason to believe That the Scriptural writers themselves have said.

Oh, yeah. Yeah, that's that's what we were all talking about. I think they all would have looked at Molina or William Lane Craig or any of the modern proponents of the system and gone. What? Are you seriously thinking that someone would have to have that level of? in-depth philosophical knowledge to have some remote concept of What I have been about in this world, which would mean that the vast majority of humanity would never be able to really understand Any of this stuff?

I I just don't see any reason to believe biblically in this system every attempt that I've seen to establish it involves The utilization of texts that are clearly not even starting to address that it's just well notice it says this So maybe if this were the case, then possibly we could extrapolate this and etc, etc Again showing its external nature and I don't see those those texts that are Specifically on this subject that are specifically on the nature of God In any way shape or form Pushing us this direction and evidently nobody did during church history either Even those who would have had reason to try to come up with that kind of a thing.

So I just.

Did read somewhere and I'll have to get back to you on this because I'm first. I didn't have time to prepare us before I Called but in Augusta's on the gifts of perseverance. Apparently, there is a section that touches on this idea.

And I can't verify that again. I don't want to say that find. I'd love to call back and interact with as well as I just got Bruce where's book on his. Again, it's called God's greater glory and supposedly touches on the reformed middle knowledge.

Perspective and so. Perhaps I can give you a call. Well, I'm familiar with that book. I'm just not familiar with with an identification of it as as as being Molin ism and that's in that context, but you know, maybe.

Maybe I need to take a look at English between just the idea of middle knowledge. With the entire system of monism, I think monism is generally associated with the Arminian approach. Disagree with Calling himself a monist, but I think this point is that he says, okay Well knows that if these people were in these circumstances that they would do this that didn't happen.

Yeah, God God's knowledge is not a false knowledge. So we must classify this as something. It's not not simply there's an actual knowledge of God. So how do we classify that?

Well, that's knowledge. Well, you know and again we can we can speculate about how to classify elements of God's knowledge but historically the utilization of this system has been to blunt the reality of God's freedom to act as he will and to establish man's ability to Have a quote-unquote libertarian free will even though some would argue and I think effectively that to micromanage the Context around the free will so it always does what you want it to so that your system holds together is in some ways more offensive to the Libertarian Arminian than even the sovereignty of God would be in a reformed sense.

But be that as it may the the functional result of all this has been to reaffirm the the fact that man's will is not in slavery to sin and that to me is is the greatest Danger and anyone can see the vast difference in the apologetic result of the application of these systems.

The Molinist If you look at you know, and I've I don't remember what I did this last in the program. But it wasn't that long ago just a couple weeks ago where I presented William Lane Craig's Presentation on the subject of What you prove in a debate with an atheist and that is that there is a a preponderant the the preponderance of evidence points to the greater probability of the existence of God and That of the reformed perspective that says You cannot even begin to explain the existence of the world outside of the Christian God Not just a God not a bare theism, but Christian theism itself that the two systems have very very very different Results, and I think a lot of that goes back to this this resulting denial of the true slavery of man to sin so it has a lot of ramifications and I think those ramifications again are primarily Biblical in nature, unfortunately what we see in the in the Academy today is a massive distinction between The two areas and very few of those who live their lives in philosophy ever become serious exegetes and vice versa.

I.

Think the biggest problem for me is the full nature of man. And in how? And that's what do you think. Philosophically it is sound, but like you point out philosophy doesn't necessarily equal good.

Yeah, and think and think about this too as well. I Wonder how within a a a Molinistic universe within a within that kind of a construct when when it is asserted that That man is is free and yet fallen.

If man is a rebel against God then will not man even be self-destructive and go against. What would be best considering his circumstances to maintain his rebellion? I think there's that I think there's an unbiblical Optimism that that I don't think that that Craig and the others have been able to rid Molin ism of its Jesuit roots.

Because there's a fundamental flaw in Roman Catholicism regarding The the depth of the depravity of man. I think that's one issue that needs to be very seriously considered and thought about.

Yeah, that's that certainly would be a.

Text they use the problem is again. It's it's so rather grossly Isagetical at that point because it says the grace of God as a peer bring salvation for all people and Then what training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions and live self-controlled upright and godly lives in the present age the idea That this is a peanut butter grace.

That is just sort of a general Enlightenment that releases from the depravity of sin or something like that is Not even close to the context of what what we're talking about here. And that again is the kind of stuff that that Molina would do and that Roman Catholics continue to do this day.

Read read the the encyclicals the Popes and and the various statements of the Cardinals and they will constantly Not only be repeating very similar themes. But also be treating scripture in that way where its original context and original meaning doesn't really matter very much.

It's that well, there's an overarching theme here and we the and you know, the infallible church can see it well at that works. Roman Catholics doesn't work nearly for as well for our minions because they don't have the Associated infallibility the church fall back on that point, but I think it's one of the main the main issues there is is that It it it always has to be a system that is seeking to make man Something that biblically he is not and I know all of the all the reasons why people want to go there.

Because the biblical teaching about the depravity of man will never ever be popular. But I I really would point out to folks that before the Apostle Paul said a word about the good news. He spent quite some time talking about the bad news.

And it is just there that we can trust the Holy Spirit of God to bring those words to come alive in people's hearts and. So, yeah, actually I have asked one of our bloggers on the team of Paula Guillaume, he's already been working on a Basically taking Francis Turreton's Discussion of Molin is in the middle knowledge, which is very difficult very in-depth.

Gave me a headache the first time I worked through it. There's no question about it in his Institutes of Lengthic Theology and I've sort of given him the very high task and it is a high task. It's a difficult task of Not so much translating it but making it understandable in our modern context.

I know he's already begun work on that. So it should be on the blog before too long and.

Portions of that are available online to there is something by Turreton in response. Another one of them if I can find it and if you have time if you could address that in your blog. And I don't want to monopolize your time right now, but now we'll see interested.

Yeah, sure. We'll see.

I mean again, I don't even if there is philosophical speculation Concerning God's knowledge of of things that don't take place. That's not the same thing as a fully developed system such as Molina presented.