August 11, 2011

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 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.

John 6:39 and the Force of the Subjunctive

And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line starting half an hour early so we can add in a half an hour get done at the same time if I would stop listening to Podcasts and debates and trying to keep up with stuff as best you can nobody can keep up with everything I don't know.

I don't know how anybody, you know, people send me links all the time. I'm like, how did you find that? You know, I mean It's it's enough for me to be keeping up with unbelievable and al moeller and a few other Podcasts that I try to listen to regularly and All the URLs sent to me of debates and stuff like that.

I don't know how people keep up with some of the stuff. They do but anyway evidently, they multitask a whole lot faster than than I do, but If I if I wasn't doing that then we could do just regular size dividing lines because I just keep doing the same thing.

But I keep running and stuff and I go Oh, I want to talk about this and I want to talk about that and so we have to have more time. So in this first half hour, we're going to answer some a couple of emails.

Make some comments on Some Mullin ism from William Lane Craig and then move back to the two primary debates that we're working on here. We've got to make a little more progress. I keep slowing down too much.

I apologize for that, but Then again, where else are you gonna get this kind of discussion? But right here on the dividing line two questions were sent in that are relevant. I'm actually gonna try to have a have a flow of a theme here, which is which is different very difficult.

But I will put in the proper effort and that is the proper use the term effort. There are some people who abuse the term effort. It's a sad thing. It's a very very sad thing and we should we should pray for them.

But anyway Here's the question. I have a question concerning John 6 39 and This is the Father's will which hath sent me that of all that he hath given me I should lose nothing But should raise it up again at the last day.

Obviously King James's the fifth there I've heard an Arminian say well, there you go. That's in Arminian. Arminian say that the shoulds in that verse are in the subjunctive and therefore refer to possibilities or probabilities so the sense that text me something like I Should maybe raise it up at the last day or I might possibly raise it up at the last day.

I know there are other ways of showing this not. This is not the sense of the text and I know that if that were the interpretation all of Christianity would be destroyed. But I was just wondering if you could give me some Insight on the use of the subjunctive here and why it does not negate the fact that all that are Given will be raised up on the last day.

Well those crazy Arminians Proving once again that a little Greek is a very Very dangerous thing. I'm a little surprised. I'm not. I Have a feeling that this isn't the verse that the person actually was thinking of.

Maybe I'm not sure what you've but you normally hear is what I addressed in regards to Dave Hunt years and years ago What love is this came out?

And.

And people who look at the subjunctive and since they don't know the range of meanings of subjunctive. Especially the use of subjunctive in purpose and result clauses after the term Hinnah. They they try to say well, yeah, this isn't you know, this might happen and they confuse purpose and result clauses with a regular use of an indicative versus a Subjunctive in a statement of fact or something like that or conditional sentences.

There's it's it normally is far beyond the reading they did in the front of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance or something along those lines and in John 639 Appa less. Oh is in the Subjunctive.

And.

On a stay so. But these are in Hinnah clauses and that's why it's Translate it. The should part is primarily coming from English because that's just how we express These things think about it.

And.

This is the will of my father so when you have a it's tuta day when you you have a tuta this is and then Hinnah Literally we translate it in order that but frequently a trend it's it's it's really just indicating sort of a Here's the fulfillment of what I just said.

Sometimes it's a quotation he said this or something along those those lines and so all that we have here is the revelation of the will the father of the son that I Should lose Nothing of all that he has given me But I should raise it up in the last day, so All this is telling us is this is the will of the son this is well the father for the son and so any Question about the ability of the son to fulfill this would would not be a matter of grammar this is just simply telling us this is what the will of the father for the son is and And anybody who would suggest that the son is incapable of doing that I question their Christianity I Question their their very now.

I've actually heard people say well yeah, it's it's the will the father for the son, but man's free will can get in the way and I and I just I just.

I.

I look at that and I just go are you listening to the words? The will of the father for the son is that he should lose nothing of all that he has given me. So you're telling me the father is so unwise.

He would give his son a task. He cannot accomplish. Are you I mean, do you really want to go there? I mean if you let me put it this way people are always saying well, you know, some of the some of the hypers out there Are always saying those those are you know.

There's not our minion in the world to ever go into heaven and all the rest that stuff and we've we've talked about that and and I'm thankful the vast majority of our minions. I know of are inconsistent and they would recoil from the idea that Jesus could fail but you know what if You're at a consistent Armenian at that point if you will actually look at me in the eye and say oh, hey the father can try and the son can try and the spirit can try and They it's it's a it's an inter Trinitarian effort but fail.

Now you're starting to get to the point where I'm sort of a little more comfortable going you sure you understand this gospel thing. Because you you've got you boy. Wow, you are really out to lunch on that one.

So no, there's nothing in the shoulds that indicates there's so well, yeah, I don't know if it's really gonna happen, you know and no, there's That that does not follow at all. Next question that it was sent in is very very interesting.

Reformed Theology, Loved Ones, and the Justice of God

I've been a joyful Christian for 35 years. But when I was introduced to Reform Theology eight years ago I lost my joy over my loved ones who the father didn't want to save and are now in hell. Jesus said no one could come to me unless the father who sent me draws him.

Yet Jesus condemns those who don't come to him. How can he condemn them for not coming when the father doesn't want them to come and is making impossible for them to come? Also if the father loves the elect so much and decides when to save them Why does he wait to say some until they're older and have lived lives of sin hurting others?

Why not save them when they're children? Finally, I don't know how to witness anymore. I could be witnessing to a non elect person and telling him or her a lie Jesus doesn't love him or her didn't die on the cross for his or her sins, etc.

Can you help me? I Will be very honest with you. I doubt that this is actually an honest question. I really will because I've never met a person who is actually reformed. Who's in a reformed church who who hears any kind of meaningful reform preaching?

That would ever be this confused. I really I just I'll be perfectly honest with you I have heard this as an objection so many times that my gut feeling is this is more of an objection Masquerading as a question than it is actually a question.

But given the commonality of it, let's take this apart. Why. For this person. Did you have joy over your loved ones? Before. When God couldn't save them one way or the other it was all up to them, you know when people say oh I just you know, if what if the father this is this is the big emotional ploy that George Bryson pulled and and You hear you hear people doing it all the time in the sermons Radio Free Geneva's we've done recently.

You've heard the same thing. God might not want to save your children. God might not want to save your parents or your loved ones and and all the rest of stuff. The hidden part of that is what I'm preaching to you is if even God does want to save them he can't.

It's up to them. He's doing his best. We do our best, but nobody can save them. It's all of them. That's that's what they're really saying and I just don't want you to think about that part or maybe they've not thought about that part.

That's that's a possibility. But I find it very difficult. I've never ever ever met anybody Who embraced reformed theology said all that made me so sad I Lost all my joy because the father doesn't want to save my loved ones.

You know, it's it's interesting. Why do you think that God would be under obligation to save anyone including yourself? That's what I would like to ask. Because you seem to think God's under obligation to do this.

So anyone who believes doctors of grace recognizes that my salvation is completely of grace so if I recognize that.

The.

Propriety of my own condemnation then I'm not gonna be sitting around going. Oh, well. What if he doesn't want to save this person or that person? The question is why would he want to save any of us? No one is truly reformed in their heart when they do not have a biblical view of grace.

Just it just it doesn't happen. You may say you believe some of the doctrines or whatever else fine, but to be reformed. First and foremost is to recognize that you are.

A.

Deserving sinner. You're deserving of God's wrath and Punishment and everything you have comes from grace. All of grace. Read the book. Charles Spurgeon wrote it all of grace. Read it. It's a good thing.

So Yes, Jesus did say. Now it says loved ones who the father didn't want to save and are now in hell. Okay, so you'd be more comfortable with the idea that he that he tried and failed. Then that he didn't try and they're getting justice.

Is that is that the idea? Jesus said no one can come to me unless the father sent me draws him yet. Jesus condemns those who don't come to him. He condemns them because they are what again? Deserving of condemnation because they are what again?

Sinners. Because they're under the wrath of God and they are justly under the wrath of God, right. And so We have the question How can he condemn them for not coming when the father doesn't want them to come and is it making it impossible then come?

Hello.

Fundamental reform theology. They don't want to come. What does the Bible say they hide in the darkness? They are enemies of God. God haters hearts of stone love their sin. And so I'm sorry, but if if you.

As.

Introduced to reform theology eight years ago. You weren't introduced to it very well if you do not understand both the holiness of God the universal call to all people to repent and believe and then the necessity of grace to free people from spiritual death and The fact that nobody has any basis for saying to God.

Why didn't you do this. Because the only thing that God owes to anybody is justice. You you did not get a very good introduction At that at that point and he's not making it impossible for anyone to come because it's already impossible for them to come.

He didn't make it impossible. They're spiritually dead. I mean, are you?

Okay.

Also the father loves the elect so much and decides when to save them. Why does he wait to save some until they're older and have lived lives of sin hurting others? Wow, so God God God just has to save all the elect and their kids.

There's no purpose why someone be saved a different age. I mean I was saved at a very very young age and I am thankful for that. But you know what there are times when I talk to people who are going through Stuff in life that I that never even touched me.

It wasn't a part of my upbringing. I was not around people and I recognize I am limited in what I can. What I can say to them. I mean I can give them biblical advice, but I cannot in any way shape or form on a personal level connect with what they're going through.

I.

Mean, I.

You know, I talked to so if I talked to someone who struggles with drug addiction or something.

I.

Have no concept of that. I Really don't. Alcoholism no concept. I detest the taste of alcohol. I Stand it. And when I had LASIK surgery Number of years ago. They said would you like to have half a Valium before the thing?

Rich knows but I took half a Valium and then five minutes. I was on the floor.

I.

Can't handle the stuff man. I just detest the feeling of Not having complete control over my mind and faculties and body. I just can't do it, so I never experienced any of that stuff and Hence there are certain people I can tell you what the Bible says about these things, but I'll be perfectly honest with you.

I've outside my experience. But if God wishes to make trophies of grace of someone who's 65 years old and draws himself to them that point. Who are we to complain? He has his purposes. He is the sovereign king.

Why not save them when their children. Well, sometimes he does. But he's under no obligations. He has his purpose. He's working out finally. I don't know how to witness anymore. This is this is where I really go.

Come on. I Don't think so. I could be witnessing to a non-elect person. Yes, you could be and you know what? We don't know who the elect are and there is not a reformed person on the planet. Who's truly reformed.

There might be hyper Calvinists out there and say well you need to look for signs of regeneration. All right, that's what makes him a hyper Calvinist. And that's why everyone who says I'm hyper Calvinist is a bold-faced liar and they know that and you know who you are and some of you teach at Southern Baptist seminaries and you continue to lie about me and You won't debate me.

I'd come down and debate you and demonstrate these things, but you know, that's that's the way it goes. But anyways We are not told go look for the elect. Because we cannot tell who the elect are. So we proclaim the gospel to all people.

All people that's a wonderful thing. Can you help me. Yeah, I I hope I did but I'm again just a little bit skeptical on that one. If if that's what you've been taught then you need to. You need to Get to a better church than the one that you are currently at.

Molinism, Middle Knowledge, and the Grounding Objection

Now for some reason here we go. There we are. All right, let's Listen to a recent podcast from William Lane Craig where he's talking about Molinism and I went a little bit longer on those and I expected to so let's dive right into it.

This is dr.

Craig I've really been trying to find a good ground to stand on concerning libertarian free Will. Well, it seems intuitive is now without serious problems when probed. Your work on Molinism has really opened a world of thought for me and view of the nature of God The nature of man and some good self-reflection as well.

But as I'm sure you're all too aware of I've come to that fork in the road of the problem of randomness arbitrariness the libertarianism presents as our compatibilist friends would say if God is not the grounding source of why we choose a over B by Determining it then what is?

Why did one choose a and not be now?

Let me just stop it right there. Now. Let's think for just a moment in the Molinus worldview. We have this thing called middle knowledge. Why is it called middle knowledge. Because it exists between the natural knowledge of God and the free knowledge of God.

The natural knowledge of God is the knowledge God has of himself his being. It's perfect. It's complete. The free knowledge of God is that which he has of the universe that he decrees to create. So the difference between natural knowledge and free knowledge is that free knowledge is dependent upon the decree to create all things and Therefore know everything there is to know about the the Creation has come forth from God and middle knowledge comes between the two and It's this concept that God would know What any free creature would do given any circumstance in any possible world.

And.

One of our big problems here and it's a problem that I don't think that dr Craig has solved in any way shape or form or any of the Molinus do which is why the Roman Catholics who came up with this Weird theology in the first place have pretty much abandoned it.

The the main problem is called the grounding objection and and that is what is what is the ground of asserting The existence of this knowledge. It certainly doesn't come from Scripture. No one has ever read the Bible and come up with these conclusions.

It's just I'm sorry. It just It just doesn't come from the Bible.

But.

The idea is how can God know? What a free creature is going to do. What actions a free creature would take given circumstances outside of his decree because it's his decree That determines who I am. I.

Of how human beings Make their choices. Because it you have this this human being just sort of floats around out there and makes decisions but isn't determined by his own. His own makeup his own nature Etc, etc.

So if God's decree determines How tall I am my intellectual level How much body fat I carry where I live so on so forth and all of these things massively impact the decisions we make. Then how can God have any knowledge of these beings and what they're gonna do outside of his decree?

It just doesn't make any sense at all I'm sorry but I've tried to think it through and I can't and I've asked those people who Support this idea and and they don't give me very satisfying answers as to how could God have this kind of knowledge outside of his decree.

But the point is the idea is that God knows this and there is nothing in hit. It is not determined by his decree as to what their actions are gonna be. So what is it determined by? It's not determined by God, so it's determined by and Let's let William Lane Craig answer.

Let's start there.

Well, the question is misconceived for a libertarian because there isn't any determining cause or reason. For why a person chose a rather than not a this is the essence of free will is to make Decision oneself without any sort of determining basis or ground.

So the whole idea of agent now.

Immediately, I just go. All right. Do you really believe that we make decisions that way? I. The idea that our our nature presents to our will Desires the strongest desire is what the will will act upon.

It's this this free Agent, and I just want to go. How can this fit with a biblical anthropology? We are slaves to sin. Are we not? So is there is this the great prevenient grace thing that once prevenient grace Frees us from slavery to sin we can do there's something like that.

I don't causation is that the agent himself is the source of his decisions and there just isn't any further explanation for why the agent freely chose a. Rather than not a now, of course you can talk about his motivation.

So what he wanted to do, but then the Determinist will say but why did he want to do that and you launch into an infinite regress?

I don't think it's an infinite regress at all. I think it goes back to the fact that the will makes decisions based upon The desires presented to it by the nature of that person and this is where they can't go because that nature is determined by what?

If you say it's undetermined by God then it exists X nihilo. It exists outside of God's sovereignty there. So there are things in the universe that that exists that determine the outcome of things Determine the outcome of even God's actions, but They are not determined by God.

Wow, that's a that that's a pretty scary comment.

You simply need to cut the infinite regress off by saying that on libertarianism An agent is able to make decisions to do what he freely wants to do. And that's it. And that's not the same as saying that the random it's not like the motion of a subatomic particle that Could go this way or that.

Indeterministically, it's not as though our choices in our minds are random events. They are events that are done for reasons, but ultimately they're because this is what an agent.

Wants to do. Well, what reasons are these? So these reasons come forth from the nature of the beat of the person and. So sin doesn't impact that. Context doesn't impact that.

It.

Isn't all doesn't all that flow from the impact of the external world upon the person which would again Wrap it up with a decree there for there couldn't be any middle knowledge of these things you see it just it's a it's a system that promises you something it cannot deliver on and.

The fact that you can have such libertarian freedom is evident in the fact that even for these Reformed persons who want to have a compatibilistic view God has libertarian freedom.

Yes God has libertarian freedom because God is the creator of all things and is not constrained by creatureliness. Sin the decree of his creator. Any of these other things? Yes. There is one libertarian will in the world and the idea that well if there's one then there can be many more.

Seems to me like a really bad argument.

Especially in light of biblical anthropology. He isn't determined in his choices by factors that.

External to himself. However, however does not the Bible say? that God always does good and. So is there not a consistency between the actions of God and the nature of God in that sense? So the Bible says God cannot lie.

God cannot do these things because they are contrary to his nature. So even at that point.

So even the Compatibilist it seems to me ultimately has to admit the reality of libertarian freedom with respect to God. He is a free agent who is able to choose between a and not a.

Simply because he wants to do one and not the other. The questioner goes on to say that that he has seen them planting Appeals to the fact that God has libertarian freedom. So by extension, it's at least possible that we do too.

But the determinist are determined. Yeah, but it doesn't fall from there.

Now, let me let me see if I can find there was this one point and I'm actually going through this in my mind. Right now is where I was in the ride. So, okay. I was turning that corner. So that would be about about here.

Let me see if I can find. It's at least possible that we do too, but the determinist are determined to push the envelope with the question how. Is an appeal to God having libertarian freedom the only route we can we can take here?

Well, I don't think it's the only route as I say what you need to do is simply to insist that the yeah.

Yeah, we've already heard all that.

I want I want to find is simply incorrect when he says that we're stuck with this Unsolvable problem of randomness. No, no big. But they went on about this for a long long time.

He actually went to a text of scripture and I wanted to be accurate to say that the actions of libertarian free will. And so I I didn't have time to queue it up and unfortunate program.

He is the agent himself is the source of his actions. And there is what they went on for about seven minutes.

I'm surprised I didn't fall asleep while driving or riding. I'm sorry. 24.

Jesus describes the conditions under which the people of Sodom Tyre and Sidon would have repented. Namely if they would have witnessed the miracles that Christ performed there in Bethsaida and Capernaum and so on.

However, given that God knew that the people of those cities would have repented under those conditions yet God didn't provide those conditions for them means that these people were lost in our world.

But they weren't trans world Depraved. How would someone who holds to trans world depravity handle this. Passages. Now we're getting into this is this is sort of fun.

He the question introduces this concept of trans world depravity and. This is sort of like what happens when Voyager comes back and beams up a Calvinist and an Armenian, okay. We've got trans warp transistor, that's pretty weird.

Anyway, now Craig's gonna explain this and I appreciate that. But I want you to listen. And if we have to go a little bit in the next half hour. Well, I want you to listen to what he does with this biblical text because folks.

He's exactly right here. William Lane Craig demonstrates he can do biblical exegesis. Exactly right here, but listen to what he has to say.

Seems to be a clear debunking of the theory just a terminological clarification.

He's conflating trans world depravity. Which is doctrine that Alvin Plantinga has suggested that says that in any world of free agents Which God might have created? Persons go wrong and commit sin. He's confusing that with trans world damnation.

Which is a doctrine that I suggest it could be possible. Which is that in any world feasible for God? Persons who reject God and are lost would have been lost in any of those worlds had they been created instead.

Now now just think about that for just a minute. Trans world damnation. The idea that there are people in any Feasible world for God That could never be saved. Where does that come from folks? Where does that come from?

I mean there must be some force outside of God that determines these things. That that determines that there are certain creatures in any Possible world that could never be saved who determines that God didn't.

You have things in this type of philosophy that are determined by powers beyond God.

Now the passage that he mentions in Matthew chapter 11 verses 20 to 24 is one of the classic proof texts used by Molinists to prove the doctrine of middle knowledge really ironically. Yes, it is when you look at the Molinists from the 17th 18th century.

This would be one of their proof texts along with the story of David and the men of Kaila Asking whether or not you saw would come down and attack the city and whether the men of Kaila would deliver David over.

Similarly here they appeal to this passage as saying that Jesus is disclosing That if these miracles had been done in Tyre and Sidon, then they would have repented so ha ha this proves a middle knowledge.

Well, I don't think that it's a very good proof text because I think that it's highly unlikely that Jesus is disclosing a piece Of middle knowledge here. I think that's waiting this with too much theological or philosophical freight as Anthony Kenny has said I think Exegetically, this is far more likely a piece of religious hyperbole on Jesus part which is just meant to underline how wicked and Recalcitrant the people are that he's talking to he's trying to say you people are really really bad.

If the miracles that you've seen had been seen by these other folks, they would have repented. It's not meant to be literally a piece of middle knowledge. But just religious hyperbole to underline the wickedness of those who saw Jesus miracles and didn't repent.

And so for that reason, I don't think it's a good proof text for middle knowledge. And then at the same time it's not a good proof text for showing that trans world damnation is not Possibly true doctrine either.

I.

Had to play one warp. I agreed in the context of a great deal of disagreement. But it's exactly right that that text is not sitting there going. Oh, well There's there's some middle knowledge of what those people would have done in a in another possible world had God done this and no.

The whole point is the Jews viewed the people of Tyre and Sidon as pagans and Yet Jesus was saying those Pagans were not as hardened in their rebellion against God as you are. That's what that's about.

It's not about middle knowledge. None of this. There are no biblical texts about middle. It's just not there. It's just that it's it comes from outer space and place. So There there you go with that and Want to get that in there, but want to then transition.

Phil Fernandes, Molinism, and the Best Possible World

Immediately since we're talking about those things into another mullinist. Dr Phil Fernandez in his debate with mr. Comus on the subject of Calvinism and we are at if you are interested in such things 44 minutes and 22 seconds into the Debate and we are continuing with Phil Fernandez I want to get through his opening statement because it's the Interchange the going back and forth that I think is the most interesting.

So let's.

Let's dive back. Oh in short. I accept conditional Predestination not the unconditional a predestination of Calvinism in my view a predestination I can truly say that I am here tonight because I freely chose to be here tonight.

But in my view it is also just as true to say that I'm here tonight because God eternally predestined me to be here tonight. It might being here tonight with somehow for God's purposes God would have prevented me from actualizing my free choice to be here tonight.

Now there is your mullinism. God would have prevented me from actualizing my free choice.

And.

There's the problem. That's the micromanagement and I just want to I just want to ask my mullinist friends. Why do you call that free will? Why why do you. I mean, it's it's a it's a shadow. It's a charade.

Because it has no it has no substance to it. I mean if you desire not to be there then God somehow Micromanages you and puts you in the position where you always do What he wants you to do, how is that free will I.

Mean, I know some people just really desperate to try to avoid Compatibilism, even though there's these great biblical texts that present it which didn't get discussed in this debate, unfortunately, but they're there and.

But at what cost. At what cost you're willing to do that?

God could have allowed me to get ill or it could have caused my car to get a flat tire.

See external things see God. For some reason these folks don't mind God's Sovereignty impinging upon us as long as it's a flat tire or a microbe or something like that, but not my will. Because that is the ultimate authority.

In a similar fashion I believe that God has predestined the elect to be saved in that he foreknew who would accept Jesus as Savior given certain circumstances.

Given certain circumstances, that's where the Mullen ISM comes in again, not just bare foreknowledge. He looks down the corridors of time and sees who's gonna do this. And we've already disputed for known and The noun verb etc, etc.

But this again in light of the fact that mr. Comas specifically said Phil Fernandes is a Mullen IST. I'm interpreting it in that way. And here you have this Actualization concept the same same language we we hear with William Lane Craig.

Since he loves all mankind and desires that none be lost God predestines to bring about Circumstances in which I would accept Christ as Savior if God loves all people.

And does not desire any to be lost yet. He actuates a world in which he is certain that there will be lost people, right? What is his purpose in that? Now this this is where it gets really serious because later on I think in the rebuttal period Phil's gonna make a comment about this and I think it really does bring out the stark difference between Mullen ISM and Calvinism.

Because the Mullen IST is still saying that Fundamentally, this is the world God chose and it could not be otherwise because his middle knowledge could not be falsified. If God's middle knowledge cannot be falsified then God knew exactly what was going to take place in the creation of this world but the vast difference is I say God knew exactly would take place in the creation of this world and He had a purpose for every bit of it.