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

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 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white 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 in the 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, eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number eight seven seven seven five three three three four one 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

My question today is about Romans chapter 13, and I know you a couple of two or three weeks ago

You were talking to a caller about this on a different in a different vein and went back and I hadn't studied this the

Particular chapter in a while and I was talking about it to some people and my question is we were all wondering

About how a lot of you know, Romans 13 as far as Christians submission to governmental authorities whether they happen to be

What are the limits to that because we're thinking, you know throughout human history. There's been a lot of unjust

Oppressive governments even throughout the world today probably more than not, you know But you know a person living under that What those?

Limits are because you know think throughout the cook through the Cold War, especially in the Cold War a lot of politically conservative

Christians in America supported, you know movements dissident movements in behind the

Iron Curtain and sometimes monetarily support even movements, you know in against Marxist or even governments in Asia or in Central America and My question is to what extent if any kind of Christian participate in a movement against an oppressive government including possibly their own.

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. Well, okay

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 realize this

This is going worldwide. I mean for this us who live in the u .s What about like for example, you know not long ago in in this country?

We if we celebrated our July 4th holiday and people brought up You know

I know 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 You could recommend it would be

I Apologize not not an area of my study. It has nothing to do with Islam Arabic, right?

I mean, I mean should I mean because the question came up being if that would be a you know

Would have been Wallace. I mean should Christians be do you believe it's morally permissible for Christians to celebrate the 4th of July?

I mean in in light of the fact that maybe that was you know, an active, you know Wallace well, but the 4th 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 I am concerned about those who do come up seemingly with the idea that 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 I thought you know, we were Interesting you brought the issue about Christian nation because I know in some circles that's very controversial

But you are we a Christian nation? Are we not it seems to me from The reading I was doing that Consistently in the

Old and New Testament, you know, a lot of churches will post You know Psalm 33,

I think it's verse 12, which is blessed as the nation whose God is the Lord and they think well That's a political entity, but it seems to me that fits right in with first Peter I think to nine or talks, but you know, you are a holy nation, but that's

The nation is a spiritual entity not a political. Well, you know, I don't think there's any question that any 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 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 Tuesdays 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.

Um first. I just 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

Works boasting and monergism and so my question concerns

Ephesians 2 8 to 10 and at the end of Romans 3 So, you know 8 to 10

Paul talks about faith works and boasting and says that we've been saved grace through faith and that this is not our accomplishment it's a gift of God not resulting from And so I know that our reformed theologians find monergism in these verses

Because this is not if you're doing refers to the whole phrase saved by grace through faith we can

Face itself. It wasn't a monergistic gift and we would be able to boast in our faith. Is that a fair?

Yeah, I yeah I think it'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 so the the question or the the difficulty that I'm trying to work through is

When I look at Romans 3 and 4, especially Romans 3 27 to 28

We're He presses the point that if we're justified by faith apart from work our boasting is excluded so if justification is by faith, we have no grounds to both and so when

When I look at what we are concluding from from a speech Where we say that we do have grounds to both in faith

I'm having trouble reconciling that with with Very strong statements in Romans 3 that if we're justified by faith don't have grounds to both

I was wondering if you could comment on that or I'm I'm I lost you when you said we have grounds of boasting and Ephesians 2 where does it say that?

No, I was saying I'm sorry. I think I misspoke Well, I I meant that if we conclude that In it in Ephesians 2 that that faith would be a ground to both if our faith you know that if That that that there would be something in faith that we could boast about But see but see it 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 aspect since 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 that the the hypothesis from Ephesians 2 actually stands well, actually,

I mean the the point that the the part where I'm having trouble is is when we

When we say when we criticize like a synergistic or Arminian view of faith where it's like faith is something that in some way comes

Comes from us and and we say that that would be a ground for boasting

So so we'll we'll criticize Arminians or say say that one reason we should reject

Arminian ism Is that it would it would give us a ground to boast in our faith is?

If everyone had that capability and we somehow were better than someone else. Yeah, right. Well so so What so then when

I'm when I'm looking at Romans 3 it seems to even even deny the idea that that faith

Faith could provide a ground for boasting that Because because if it's by work, that's right.

If it if salvation is by faith apart from work Even the idea that faith would be an accomplishment that we could both under under under 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

This 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 2

You conclude that that there Paul is would be asserting that that faith would be something that we could consider like 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 let's move on and talk with Richard hi

Richard Doing all right Good.

I used to be a reformed person actually I've followed you since I was in high school, but 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 Debate or 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 reform 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's 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 and a very meticulous control that in essence

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 mainly for the listeners.

I 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 don't mean this is a an attack on Calvinism.

I have a deep respect for it. But for example PE, I'm not aware of Anyone in the church teaching clearly on P before Calvin And so I don't have a problem with it as long as it's part of the script

Assuming you're referring to the person 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 is not derived from any kind of biblical presentation at all

Okay, well if you could for me and I know you probably If you could just give me an example in 1st

Samuel 23 6 through 10 in that general Text area that would be one example where Mon is

Derived the idea of middle knowledge 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 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 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 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 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

Molin 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? No, not necessarily, but I would be hesitant to throw out the baby with the bathwater just because You know, he's

Catholic or might 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 that we should be at least open to its precepts

But do you see the difference do 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 Let's forget about Molina William Lane 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 He The philosophical foundations for Christian worldview, but I was curious

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 would seem to understanding

That's right from my understanding I'm always in teachers 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 just that the basis of that decree is different than 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 I 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 But that would be something that if I can 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 in that 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 his point is that he says, okay

Well in Scripture, it says that God Knows that if these people were in these circumstances that they would do this that didn't happen yet God God's knowledge is not a false knowledge

So we must classify this as something that's not not simply this way of speaking

But it is 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 and philosophy ever become serious exegetes and vice versa

For me is the full nature of man and in how Monism reconciles that within their system, and that's one of the reasons that I'm not fully committed to it

I do think philosophically it is sound, but like you pointed 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 I think there's an unbiblical Optimism that I don't think that that Craig and the others have been able to rid

Molinism 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 I want to understand they would use

And claim that all men are at least given the ability to be I don't know if they'd call it enabling grace but I think they would at least say that all men are elevated from their depravity such that they're able to Have these free choices in it.

Yeah grace starts at that point and then for what they might call the elect he

Gives further grace, but no one is below that After God gives them that grace and that they all start dead and they would affirm that but that God elevates all man

That would be the only way I can foresee. I haven't read enough on their response to that, but that's what

I would imagine 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 has appeared 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 Turretin's discussion of Molinism and 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 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 I don't know if portions of that are available online to if there is something by Turretin in response, but maybe it's been a response by another apologist against one of them but I was wondering if I could either email you or another one of the staff there at the ministry the

Portion from Augustin 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

I just don't think anyone before Molina It's not that anyone before him had not speculated about such issues it is the creation of a system with a specific intention of using this as the means of Dissipating the tension between the sovereignty of God and the will of man

That is unique to him and is unique to that particular system. So But anyways, we feel feel free to send it along that that would be fun.

Okay One last thing can you recommend some resources for both me and whoever else is listening that may have been exposed to on as I'm from any

You know any apologists for that would it be Wendland Craig planting? Just any good stuff that's out there not necessarily on all this in itself, but maybe perhaps on different elements that You feel are most at odds with that system.

Well, I'll be perfectly honest with you my biggest criticism of all the big names you just mentioned is is real simple and this is why

I'll never be one of the big guys and I'll never be one of those those top dogs at the big conferences and it's because I'm Far too simple to get past a rather basic thing and that is as I This past Lord's Day morning was preaching at our little reformed

Baptist Church I was preaching through the 17th chapter of John I wasn't obviously attempting to cover the entirety of it because it's so deep you you couldn't even begin to do that in that context, but There is this statement about halfway through where the

Lord says sanctify them in the truth your word is truth and my primary criticism of the philosophers of the world even those who call themselves

Christians is That I do not find that their work Demonstrates a recognition of the primacy of the exegesis of the inspired word over the application of philosophical categories

My biggest problem and again, it just makes me sort of backwards and stuff and that's okay

I'm quite happy being backwards is that I Read the text and it talks to me about a the fact that what is found in God's Word is ultimately

So different than the thinking theories and words of men it is they honest

OS it is God breathed it is life we were sanctified in these words and Men spoke these words are carried along by the

Holy Spirit and the fact the matter is most these folks are not exegetes and They they certainly will will cite the text but very few of them are actually overly conversant in the biblical languages and in the issues related to that and the sad thing is many others then will

Combine a far less than conservative view of Scripture and hence its consistency with itself with their philosophical speculations and so Honestly for me the

It's not so much finding philosophical criticisms like Turretin offers as it is just simply stating the first question that I challenged you with and that is and Exactly where does

Scripture come up with this because when someone calls in here and says to me they challenged me on the

Trinity or Predestination or issues like that and says where do you derive that from Scripture?

Katie bar the door I've I'm gonna have all sorts of responses to that kind of thing because that to me is the very essence of meaningful biblical theology and Meaningful biblical

Apologetics as well. I don't see apologetics as being separated off in the philosophical realm

And in fact when it becomes separated off from the biblical text that point that's when

I find it to become Reduced to the well, I think we have a greater probability type of argument than you do

Which is not what I see as apostolic proclamation. That's not what Paul said on Mars Hill He didn't say we have a really darn good chance of being right.

That's not what he said he didn't place it in those categories and if the

Apostolic truth the gospel still abides with us then we shouldn't be stuck in that position You know, there are many people would say well, yeah, they were the

Apostles. They had access truth we don't have and I You know that opens up an entire

Pandora's box that we don't have time to address today but I simply reject that so my my problem with it is biblical and so my my issues would be let's let's get into the text like actually deal with the text and let's go to the text that actually present the sovereignty of God and present his creatorship and and things like that and the depravity of man the nature of that depravity and things like that and At that point

I will be able to derive my beliefs from the text and I think the nature of the external nature of monism will always be coming up because the interpretation will be done in light of this external concept which will never be found to be derived from a

Biblical view of man himself. That's Very well in that debate

I should say. All right. Thanks Richard. I look forward to it. Thanks a lot Richard. All right. Bye. Bye all right

So hey, we still got callers. Can you believe it? We only got about five minutes left, but we will grab

Jamie as well. Hi, Jamie Yes, sir So this will follow a little bit with what you just discussed

We had a discussion with friends about Pascal's phrase off use phrase a god -shaped hole in the heart

Mm -hmm. This came up in the discussion. We were reading through Richard Pratt's every thought captive.

Mm -hmm and John frames essay on presuppositional apologetic sort of an introduction to the topic and And Excuse me, we came up we were talking about the nature of conversion and someone brought up this phrase, you know,

Pascal's a god -shaped hole in the heart and Well, I sort of challenged that I said, you know, it doesn't seem like we were created with nothing like a hole in the heart certainly, we've accused as we are creating

God's image and You had or in and in Ecclesiastes were taught and says, you know, we've

God's appointed attorney in the heart and And operationally no pun intended. It seems like You know,

God gives us a new heart a new heart of flesh and we use our heart of stone. You'd mentioned that first in Ezekiel, so I wonder if you have a comment on it, you know words words have meanings and it seems to imply

Something that I disagree with but I don't know well My understanding of Pascal's use of the term and it last time

I read Pascal seriously was in seminary Not for not for disrespect of him, but it's just been that long.

But my recollection is That Pascal was using this terminology in a way that I would find to be acceptable and that is that Since we are creating the image of God rebellion skews our reality

It makes us less than human in in in one sense. And my understanding was he was using that in the sense that There can be no completeness

There can be no true full humanity outside of regeneration and the restoration of the relationship that should exist between the creature and his creator that a pot a

Kettle a cup that denies its creator will always be in a position that is inappropriate

Improper and incomplete and that is that relationship with God that then completes the original created

Intention for the creation itself. And so my understanding of him was

Was along those lines and I would certainly accept that kind of terminology Because I think it does describe the condition of the lost man rebellion

The we once stood outside the American Atheist Convention in Scottsdale With signs that said atheist creatures denying their own creator and they didn't like that We even had one car swerve to try to try to swing closely to us

They were very offended at that. But I think that's what he was saying now if if there's some utilization of that phraseology

That would imply that the unregenerate man is

Experiencing is not in active rebellion against God, but is simply missing something

Then there'd be a problem. Okay, right and that's what I was challenging You know I've heard bread

John frame that repeats something that Cornelius Mansell used to say and that is man's problem is not metaphysical

Yes Change not

Some piece that was missing before comes sort of comes in and right? Yeah Yeah, yeah

I mean any any analogy is subject to misuse that is the very nature of analogies and so if if the analogy is being used to say that man's

Sinful state and his rebellion against God is due to merely a lack of something and you could make the

Argumentation that that is what Rome says in essence a deprivation of a sustaining or keeping type of grace or something like that Rather than the active suppression of the knowledge of God Romans one

Holding down that knowledge if the if the illustration comes the point where you start

Rejecting the biblical parameters elsewhere, then it becomes a problem But if it's just in the context of my understanding again, it's just my recollection

But my understand as I read Pascal I didn't see him viewing it in that way and of course the whole

Jansenist movement Was was condemned because it had far too high a view of grace in essence so I think at that point

I would be willing to give our friend Blaise Pascal the

The pass on that one and try to interpret him in a positive light Okay.

All right. Well, thank you very much for your phone call. All right. God bless. Bye Bye, how many calls did we did we do for today?

That's and for a Tuesday morning. What on earth? Where'd that come from?

I mean there have been sometimes on Tuesday mornings. I've come in here going. Oh, please phones light up Okay, I'm gonna have to squeeze blood out of a turnip here to you know

Just too tired or too distracted or other things going on and then this

Tuesday morning The the phone lines just go go crazy. So and here here sits well

It's it's a waveform But but you know after a while, it's sort of like a member in the matrix

You know, you could you just see the the matrix on the screen and and you'd learn how to see what was going on I can sort of look at waveforms and that's a that's a

Tim Staples waveform, right? People people people listen to me now people Folks folks now

I'm telling you now folks folks. Yeah, that's that's the term folks and that people folks. I Can't believe it's been eight years now since since we last were there

But we we really would need to get Tim to come out and debate again You know, it's we keep trying and he's just a busy busy man, but we need to get but I had to queued up he is the discussion of staples and the

Muslims and Because that could lead into all sorts of different areas of discussion and things like that just real quickly

I only have about 30 seconds left in the program still seeking to raise funds for London It is it's expensive to travel across the pond these days and to do the things we want to do ten days there and so still letting the people of God know that That need still exists and a number of people are stepping up.

That's great but it's it's still a long ways to go over there and we're looking now at three debates not just two and So, you know getting the recordings done and things like that need to have redundancy

Make sure they are recorded properly things like that. So neat opportunities, but need to be able to get over there so make that need known to you and Appreciate your prayerful consideration of it.

And boy if we got this many calls on Tuesday, what's Thursday gonna be like? Well, probably no bill call

So it's worked in the past, but we have lots of other things to be talking about and doing here on the dividing line

So we'll see you on Thursday. God bless The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at p .o

Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks