James White vs Tim Stratton (Debate Review)

Colossians 4:5-6 and the Christian Posture in Debate

All right, welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala and today We are going to do a sort of debate. Reflection, I guess we can call it a debate review, but we're not going to be going through the entire debate point-by-point.

But we're gonna be discussing the debate that dr. James White had with dr. Tim Stratton on the proposition is Molinism biblical if I seem a little off and I look a little tired just real quick I would I had to go to the hospital two nights ago.

There was a stomach. My kids had a stomach bug and I think I caught it and you mix that in with the fact that I was very dehydrated. Apparently it is frowned upon in the medical field to drink more coffee than one drinks water.

So the symptoms of my stomach bug were magnified and I had to be taken to the hospital and it was pretty dramatic. But here I am. So I'm feeling much better now and I'm so happy to have dr. White with me.

And I suppose I don't know. I suppose this might be the last time I I'll be able to get him on to talk about this topic. I think I've dragged him into this conversation much longer than than probably he wanted to but Before we officially get started.

I'd like to just personally and publicly. Thank dr. White I know he's super busy and he's dealing with all sorts of things with new job as a professor the work that he doesn't apologetics. I just very appreciative of the time.

He's been able to take to To answer my questions and to come on and talk about these important issues. So without further ado. Let me reintroduced. Dr. James White on to reveals apologetics. How are you doing?

Dr. White?

Well, not too bad, I probably started a few brush fires on the dividing line today, but. You got to do what you got to do I guess. And that's right I did. I did announce the world that this entire Mullen ism thing is your fault and.

Because look when I I don't know what it was. Exactly. It was during lockdown stuff you you contacted me and you said would you come on and you know? I've I've all sorts felt sorry for you. You know, you're just this guy.

It's just so nice and you know and. So would you come on and talk about Mullen is I hadn't talked about Mullen this have been forever and it's just like. It's not my favorite topic but you know if you insist and that.

That then led to another thing another thing and you were actually throwing Tim Stratton stuff out. I didn't even know who Tim Stratton was. I responded to him once like in 2015 2016 something an article he had written and had no earthly idea about.

What had gone on with him after that or anything else. And sure yeah, so there you go so if folks enjoyed the debate they can. If they enjoyed it, they can thank you and if they didn't they can blame you either way it goes.

It's that's fine. I'm just I'm passing off all responsibility everybody else today. Well.

I'll I happily take that responsibility because I'm I'm very much into people having Discussions that aren't happening enough as you know, this topic does cover some interesting and important issues that I think.

You know, they're good to have and unfortunately, the internet is just such a crazy place that people sometimes can't take. You know two sides coming together and without having this kind of party spirit and arguments in a very ungodly way I think on the internet which is unfortunate.

The Debate Review and the Meaning of “Biblical”

So so before we even jump into our main topic I want to I want to read a scripture real quick. That obviously all of us are gonna be familiar with and I think dr. Stratton Quoted the scripture as well, but it's Colossians chapter 4 verses 5 and 6.

Okay, and this is my encouragement to those who are watching. I know there are a lot of people watching and will be watching this and and if you're a Christian I want to encourage you guys with this scripture and keep it on the forefront of your mind when you're engaging in debate and disagreement over these important issues.

Colossians 4 verses 5 through 6 says walk in wisdom toward outsiders making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious seasoned with salt so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.

Okay? Yeah, that has a specific context, but I do think that is relevant to how we interact with brothers and sisters over areas of disagreement. They're important. You should debate them but make sure we're doing so in a Christlike manner.

So that's my encouragement to the audience. And so without further ado. Let's begin. Let's begin our interview. Okay, so dr. White just as a general kind of a broad question here. What were your thoughts going into the debate just generally speaking?

How did you? Prepare what were some areas that you thought really needed to be brought out and then maybe after the debate in a broad sense. How did you how did you think the debate went and then we'll kind of get into some more specified questions.

Ah.

The only reason that I accepted the invitation well, it was.

It was not. They're gonna blame me again. Don't play. I was putting together These these trips that I'm doing.

They take a lot of work to try to get all these different churches and organizations and stuff like that to where I can drive to all these locations and Get it into chronological order and I had hoped to go over to Louisiana and do a debate there on Subject Roman Catholicism that didn't work out.

Mm-hmm. And so I had the invitation from Pastor McClanahan there in Houston Was on the way home and so It was it was putting something at the end of a month-long Trip sure, which included a lot of speaking and teaching at Grace Bible Theological Seminary and stuff like that and so I Wouldn't have done it except that What he said to me was he's willing to have as the thesis statement is Molinism biblical.

Mm-hmm. And so my desire was to Focus upon or hope that we could focus upon What it means for something to be biblical. What does that what does that mean? That's why in my opening statement. I said well, there's There's that which is derived from Scripture that is biblical and then there are those that would claim that something Outside of Scripture can be biblical because it doesn't necessarily contradict Teaching something along those lines and of course, that was the perspective.

I expected dr. Stratton to present and so I I I didn't know what to expect. I didn't know I knew certain people were going to be showing up and There was a sort of a posse there but I would I would say that That Though we did not I don't really have any contacts in Houston.

We didn't As a ministry or something. We didn't put out the word that we need all of our supporters to get to Houston and nothing like that this I would say The large majority of the folks in the room.

Anyways, we're seemingly we're on my side I don't know if you listened to the Concluding statements and the applause afterwards, but it was There was a there was a major difference in the audience reaction After Tim finished his closing statement and after I finished mine, and it was such a major difference that I looked over toward him as I was sitting down and We locked eyes and he just sort of grinned like yeah, I know I see that so and then afterwards we We walked over together to where they they had the greeting stuff set up They had some nice food for us things like that I think bugs me about this kind of thing is They put me right near the food and then I'm too busy to ever have any so it's like a wedding.

Sort of a torture thing. It's like you're the reception at the wedding.

So I just I just make people wait and I went over had some brownie bites. You know what if you want to take a picture I'm gonna have a chocolate chip cookie in my hand. That's the way it is. You know the older I get I don't care, you know.

So but what's funny was they set it up to where we were we never saw each other the rest of the night. There was one room in a hallway in another room and they put the Reasonable faith folks down there with him and we I was down with the Gordon's Bible software.

They were selling my books on accordance so sure that you know we didn't see each other The rest of the evening and so it was like two days later that I saw that the church Had done a poll on the live stream.

You know who won the debate blah blah blah blah and That was right about the same time that Tim was Fairly regularly claiming to have won the debate on his social media platforms the poll went the other direction but anyway and so It got interesting afterwards just in the sense of That kind of stuff as to as to how I thought it went I've been really disappointed With most of the commentary then again as I think back over the past 10 -15 years.

I'm normally disappointed with the commentary in social media and I would blame most of that on the fact that We don't we're not taught how to evaluate debates and presentations and that includes Christians and so It's primarily an emotional thing a looks thing.

You know everyone always reminds you of the Nixon Kennedy debates back back in the day where everybody Who listened to the radio? Thought Nixon creamed Kennedy sure, but everybody who watched thought Kennedy cream Nixon and it was because of the lighting and this and Nixon was sweating and Kennedy looked much younger and more you know confident and confident stuff so People judge things for all sorts of wacky reasons.

But I had made the statement During the debate multiple times that The thing that I think came out the most clearly. Was that Mullen ism is specifically Mullen ism has no life apart from Reformed Theology.

It has no life. It has no reason for existence. It was designed as I have said historically by Molina as a antidote a counteracting agent to the Reformation to reform gospel and when Tim chose to In essence use what I would almost call a transcendental argument.

It is we've spoken in the past. He does see his one his argument as sort of a transcendental that affirm it. Then you're kind of you're denied. You're kind of affirming it. Yeah in the sense of The impossibility of the contract.

Instead of a positive argument. From Scripture. I mean that is sort of what the thesis of the debate Sure would expect you'd expect Would not be. I'm gonna prove Mullen ism by attacking Calvinism from multiple different fronts and simply say if That form of Calvinism fails.

Therefore Mullen ism must be true. Most of the reactions and the evaluations of the debate have not really focused upon whether that's even a possible argument let alone for me and maybe I'm in the minority here, but I can only I Can only respond to something in in the way that I think is is most important the issues relating to Different kinds of creaturely freedom and libertarian free will and and Categorical will Conditional and all that stuff is fine and dandy, but you have to have those conversations with almost any Theological system that attempts to produce some type of theodicy.

Sure, so those issues are not unique to Mullen ism. The Solution of Mullen ism is unique. But why what is the one thing that separates Mullen ism from everything else and I would say that the debate really did not do well in Bringing that issue out from both sides because no matter how hard I attempted To push no matter how I Would sit during cross-examination while Tim filibustered and go right back to my question or whatever else.

I Could not get him to do what would have taken ten seconds to get William Lane Craig to do mm-hmm, and I Knew that from reading his book. I knew that from listening to his presentations He this mere Mullen ism thing is not Craig's Approach it just isn't sure and So I and I don't think it's Molina's approach.

So so I think it's a I think it is a purposefully truncated Perspective that is intended to be less Subject to refutation Because it makes considerably less of a positive claim. The problem is from my perspective by not making the central claim.

You're not making any claim at all if you won't defend the existence of the subjunctive conditionals, which is It's the gas. It's the nuclear reactor. It's the electrical source Whatever you want to call it that makes the thing work that's what it is and He won't if he won't That the closest he would get To even addressing that would being saying well God cannot determine a free human action.

That's that's a logical impossibility. And all I'm saying is God is a logical being. That's as close as that was and I don't consider that an answer but that's.

Well Initially, so now that would seem If libertarian free will is is true, then I would agree with that statement. However, I don't think he established as well as he thought he did Libertarian freedom, right?

So there was there's a lot of I think either begging the question in some instances or insufficient Argumentation leading to that conclusion in my estimation. So because if a libertarian free will is true and You couple that with the determinism along the lines of what we would hold to.

Yeah, I get it God causally determines someone and Libertarian free will is true. That seems to be kind of a incompatibility thing there, but but I don't think he sufficiently Demonstrated libertarian freedom from Scripture or from philosophical categorically, obviously.

We would I would argue that this is the the central issue in regards to The very nature of even using the term terminology causal determinism. Mm-hmm. He doesn't want to get into Primary and secondary and Multiphasic causality and everything else that would go into any type of discussion of of what determinism how how it even functioned but The point is that even that within his system is determined well within the Molinistic system is determined by the content of middle knowledge and I Just have come to the conclusion that that Tim is has decided that that is not a Claim that he is going to defend that he is simply going to say if God is omniscient Then he has whatever knowledge there is.

And I'm not going to address. Well, okay. He did say at one point and I don't remember I don't remember at which point in the debate It was whether is in the formal portion or whether it was in the Q &A portion.

I actually have. I did remember. Are you talking about when he said that this is where it comes from it comes? Yes, I think that was during the rebuttal when he gave his first rebuttal. Yeah, so.

When he When he said it comes from God's nature God's being I think is what it was. And and I was like, how does that even how does that even function? Because If it's a part and I you're right I did get a chance to respond to it now that I think about it if it's a part of God's Nature, but it does not come from his will and see I think that's in Q &A.

I was gonna ask him. So do you disagree? with dr. Craig's Statement that these do not come forth from his will and I I don't know that I even got a chance to ask that question. Mm-hmm. But that would be the question that I would that I would want to ask.

Sure is. I've not. I've heard him say it's a part of God's nature but if it's not a part of God's nature by God's will then is. Then it would have to be natural knowledge of God himself not middle knowledge.

So, I don't I don't know how he fits that in. Well, I think maybe he doesn't feel like he needs to. I don't know.

I just I just think that if someone says well if God is omniscient then he has to know these things. That just begs the question it assumes that middle knowledge is a thing. You have to demonstrate it.

So for example Middle knowledge in order for middle knowledge to work. God has to have his counterfactual knowledge logically prior to the divine decree, right? How do you demonstrate that? Philosophically and biblically, I mean you need that you need that to achieve.

The Proposition of the debate is Mullen isn't biblical. You need to prove biblically this philosophical concept that God has Counterfactual knowledge logically prior to the divine decree. How do you do that?

I don't. I don't see. I didn't see him actually flesh that out. Perhaps he tried to I but not at least not to my satisfaction. I.

But let's remember what what did what did he take time to do and I was Deeply disappointed in this. I don't know if the camera found it saw it. I think my head probably dropped down. Because I I said Yeah He he is going to do the you can't trust scripture garbage.

That's the that's a direct. That's a direct what I wrote on my. And everybody keeps asking me to give them a review of the Remarkable to tablet that I took my notes on. Did you ask as well? I.

Asked and it's I love it. But it's that's a that's a wallet buster man. It's it's a chunk of change.

Um, and but it is nice to have all these notes. You know, I've got I still got the Craig notes on here and stuff like that. I'm just like I told you. If you've got something else that you can write on and it feels good and it's readable.

Probably not worth the investment, but it does really feel like you're writing on paper. And it doesn't pick up like your hand and stuff like that and cause it really it really did allow me to take.

The folks order now through alpha and Omega they'll get.

They'll get a free shipping of the essence of white. That's right, no it does work well for that, but I'm not sure it's worth that but if you're traveling for me. Yeah, it's it's it's worthwhile. But anyways, I Was I was really disappointed?

Okay. When that came up in his presentation. First of all, I I really doubt how many I'll be honest with you on a simple level of criticism. Um, I'm not sure how many people in the audience were really able to follow his opening statement.

I think he has to realize this is a. This is a topic that is not in the wheelhouse of the vast majority of Christians, it's not it's counterintuitive. It's highly specialized it uses specialized terminology and That means if what you really want to do is communicate the essence of that to your audience.

You need to you need to lay it put the cookies on the bottom shelf, right?

I'm gonna interrupt you there because I think you'll find this interesting. I had a friend who attended the debate and took some students with him from Rice University. Now I'm gonna read this real quick.

I'm sure he wouldn't mind. But this doesn't mean that Molin ism is false or unbiblical or Calvinism is true. I just think it's an interesting observation my friend here. He says my Rice University students went to go see James White and Tim Stratton debate.

They were astounded at Stratton's argumentation. And then I asked astounded in what way. And they said bad. You're talking about Ivy League University students. Here's a direct quote from one of them with the highest IQ.

Again doesn't mean Molin ism is false. But I think there's interesting in light of what you said. Quote, I still don't know what Molin ism is but I know it's not biblical. That's a direct quote. To where Molinists are now leaning the opposite direction not being a Molinist now I'm sure someone could pick someone from the audience with an you know with a different perspective and but I think that was interesting in terms of the the clarity of Tim's position.

People who speak the language of philosophy and those sorts of things might have understood but to the average person coming in. It's it was. For an argument that's supposed to prove that it's biblical.

I still think it was too philosophical.

It was and it was way he had to go way too fast and he tried to cover way too much ground the argument of the deceptive God thing. When you've only got 20 minutes You've got 20 minutes to prove Molin ism is biblical and that's worth four of your four or five of your minutes that astounded me I Because I I have a hard time respecting the argument first of all but secondly, I I cannot I wasn't looking I was too busy writing at that point.

I wasn't looking at the audience at that point. But I cannot imagine that almost anyone that room was was actually following that or actually bought the idea. Whatsoever, but since the debate What has been the primary claim that dr. Stratton himself has made repeatedly and That that was the big loser was Edd Really feels like oh you didn't you didn't touch my arguments and I'm like That's because your arguments weren't Demonstrative of the thesis and therefore in a in a in a formal debate Touching arguments that are not demonstrative of the thesis is really a waste of your time.

It may it may be necessary to do that because you got nothing else to do but I Was really I was really taken aback by that. But look I liked him. We had a nice conversation beforehand He signed my book his signed his book and I appreciate that I just I'll be I'll be straight up front here.

I just felt That since he had a group That sat right in front of him. Mm-hmm. So there was communication going on over on from where I was sitting Over on that side and it's interesting. I did I did happen to see remember the debate that they had there with Layton and Pritchett and the two fire-breathing Piper.

Yeah. Yeah. Hey must you remind me?

Of course I remember that debate dr. White. Yes. Yes. We all know the echo is still is ringing in my ear.

Well, look I Happen to click on it. Someone in another channel had had posted it and I clicked on it. I was like, you know My My visual picture was not the same as what I ended up seeing when I got into the church.

But then I watched the watch the some of the video. I'm like, okay. Yeah. That is the only thing that was different was they had them speak at Two different lectures. Sure That was about the only thing that was that was different between between it but man It must have been really interesting at that table because Tim and I were sort of separated from each other.

Because I thought it was weird that we were gonna be facing each other and not being able to see the audience stuff like that. So we sort of switch stuff around but in that one they had that table turn.

Hey, man, those guys are right. Right across from each other. So I mean that that must have been really really really awkward. Nothing like that. Thankfully happened and I'm glad even though I do think That having Tim over there near his people I Don't think that was a good.

I don't think that worked out. Well because I I Felt like he was under pressure and was nervous. Because they were there. Hmm, and he was having to perform for them.

Yeah moments where he when he tried to come back to some of your zingers. He was kind of seemed like he was looking over there for yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

I I do not think that helped him at all and I know. There there's only been. I've only done a couple two-man debates. That's it is. Well, you saw the debate I did with.

Iglesias in the crystal, right? Yes. Yes. Okay, so. Can you imagine your your table was the cleanest and clearest table? I've ever seen while the opponents table.

And he's got five guys running around grabbing books for him and I'm I cannot imagine what that would be like. I. Like I said the few times I've done two-on-two debates it. When Mike Brown and I work together That's sort of weird because we finish each other's sentences and stuff like that and given how different we are as individuals sure, I think it's a little supernatural, but I've done I think one or two others and I find it harder.

I I would much rather Be able to focus and not have. I can't imagine having a posse down there Giving me hand signals or passing me notes. I couldn't do that. I.

That would be way way way too distracting. You just need you and you're remarkable too, and that's good.

Well, if I have it with me, that's fine. But yeah, that's what I need. So I think that Was was an issue and let me just say I know much has been said About the cross-examination. I haven't said a lot about it.

I Made my feelings known about at the time. I don't know if you saw the clip. But someone did pull it out of the video and made a meme out of it or something. But at one point Tim just decides he's just gonna keep on Keeping on Doing his little presentation while he's supposed to be asking me questions.

And so I had I didn't have this Bible left out, but I have my new American Standard. I have one of my Jeffrey Rice rebinds with me. Okay, so I started look at the guy in the front row and I'm. Yeah, I did I did hear that and then I got I picked up my.

It was my way of saying look filibuster all you want but this isn't a cross-examination and What what what do you think you're accomplishing here? And so That was a bad thing. I Think that it was designed.

I think that in debate preparation. The decision was made cross-ex is what white knows to do knows how to do really well. So we need to have our questions prepared. We need to have lengthy setups for them to take as much time as possible and Here are some of the responses that you're gonna need to go into and go as long as you can on them.

Try to eat up as much time as possible because I will tell you I don't think I'm betraying any confidences here that he did ask about a week before. To take one of the cross-ex periods out and make that audience questions and we said no.

We'll stick with the process. So I like the fact that the cross-examination was very long. In my opinion I think the cross-examination is the best part of the debate because you really I mean, they're designed for clash, right?

You have well that that's where a debate takes place. If you don't have cross-examination just watch one guy's video and the other guy's video and the other. That's all. That's all you've got. It doesn't.

There's no no meaningful exchange taking place, but there are supposed to be rules and Doing two and a half minute setups with all sorts of objectionable stuff that the other guy doesn't believe. Mm-hmm as.

The setup of the question is not how you're supposed to do it. Sure. My favorite part is when?

When you said he's like, can I can I respond to that and he was like no and then you started laughing. He's like, all right. I've had this experience a lot of people it a lot of people define terms for us as Calvinist because I'm standing what Calvinist believe and that's it.

And then they'll use that narrative against the reform position. But I want I want to shift shift a moment here if you don't mind. So, um, and I've been following some of the reactions of the debate now granted I seen a whole lot more than I have.

Oh sure. No apps for sure. I I don't imagine. I'm glad but I know you were joking, but you're kind of not. I'm glad you said it was my fault because some people think that you're sitting behind your laptop.

Waiting for Tim Stratton or some other Molin is to say something so that you can make a response just for the record. Anytime that dr. White and in the recent a couple of weeks or months has made mention of Molin ism.

It was probably directly or indirectly because I asked him or bugged him over Twitter. So he has another he has a life. He has a ministry. This is not.

Everybody knew I mentioned I had to drive from Houston back to Phoenix after that. Okay, so right, you know that has anyone ever driven across, Texas? That's a country. That's not a state. Very true.

You know, but but okay so but here here's kind of the main thing, okay, and this has been the narrative that's going on. So so dr. White wins on Rhetoric points and I don't think that was insulting. I think I think people Admitted as a debater you are far more experienced.

You know how to navigate the ins and outs of the debate, but those who tend to lean towards Tim side. Yes. He lost on Form, but he won on content. So that this is this is what the narrative is. So what I want to do is I want to read to you his three premise his two premises and his conclusion and so we can kind of Clear the mist if people can say well, dr. White's trying to avoid this that in reality live debates.

You don't always they're not as clean and nice as we would like. So I don't think anyone was trying to avoid anything per se you just don't get those clear answers. So what I wanted to do was I wanted to read Tim's argument.

It's just three simple steps and then ask you which premise do you disagree with and maybe you can kind of just take a few moments to unpack why you don't think his conclusion logically followed because he did what I did appreciate about Tim's argument is That he did give a deductive argument For his position.

So let's let's look through this so premise one if scripture implies both a Humans occasionally possess libertarian freedom and be all human activity is predestined before creation. Then scripture implies Molin ism premise to scripture implies both a and B 3 therefore scripture implies Molin ism.

So for folks who aren't aware, this is a deductive argument with That if the premises are true, the conclusion would follow logically and necessarily the question is are the premises true? And did Tim sufficiently defend those premises?

So which premise there dr. White? Would you take issue with or you'd want to expand upon and I could quickly repeat them for you. Well.

That presentation Again, as as I pointed out in my opening statement and No one no one says how. Hey, by the way boy Tim didn't even didn't even try to respond to your points in your in your in your opening because he didn't I Mean pretty much just left him alone because he just wanted to stick with that.

Sure because what? Because that form of the argument Does not even try To assert the existence of what makes Molin ism work. So first thing again That's being ignored. So, where does that how did how then Does he prove his point from that?

Well? First he has How what was the phraseology? So there is ever an instance of or so.

Let me read it. Let me read the first premise to you and then you can kind of continue on so premise one. If scripture implies both a Humans occasionally possessed later in freedom and be all human activity is predestined before creation then scripture implies.

Molin ism. So there's there's how you get. So, how would it imply? Molin ism only if you've established the counterfactuals. Because that's because that's what it's saying. Is it is scripture is implying the existence of.

And I just sort of like the subjunctive conditional saying counterfactual thing. Hmm seems I mean everybody Recognizes that God knows what his creatures would do. The issue is when does God know this?

Sure, and that gets skipped. That's that's not even that is not even in the argument.

You just presented can now can I can I make mention of something here? So I do know that Tim has been heavily influenced by Dr. Kirk McGregor who is is an expert in this area. Now if I can if I can venture a guess I think that what he's trying to do is establish middle knowledge kind of indirectly by establishing libertarian freedom because if God has if libertarianism is true Then that would seem to be connected to the notion that in order for libertarian freedom to be true God must have knowledge of counterfactuals prior to the divine decree.

Now I don't think he demonstrated libertarian freedom, but I think perhaps that's the way he was going. That's why at first I thought He seems to be diverting in his opening statement by his burden by attacking Calvinism.

But he may have now that I think about it. He may have been trying to Refute your position So that the libertarian free will position is the only one left and then argue for that. So like if determinism is false Then this is the only option you have and here are my reasons for for why this is the case and if libertarian free will Is true then that implies God may have this knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom logically prior to the decree and ergo Molin ism is biblical.

I think that might have been his route. But what do you think of that? Yeah, I.

Think that is descriptive of what he's trying to do but I think everyone can recognize that the very term implication and Then the term is occasionally What what was my my guess would be from the cross-examination that that has something to do with Adam and at that point We were struggling because of all the filibustering and stuff like that but at that point I Pushed him on that.

Because I was saying wait a minute that doesn't help your position and He seemed to even he asked me a question which was Was Adams and I'm not sure you put it this way, but something online was Adams fall a part of God's decree.

Right, and then he said he agreed that it was sure and so How does that fit with? Adam. Occasionally is is is occasionally having to do with the fall of man or is occasionally have to do With what he calls earthly matters.

Sure. And for people in the audience earthly matters versus heavenly matters. Whether you go to McDonald's or Burger King for lunch one day is an earthly matter. It doesn't matter in the long run, etc, etc versus heavenly matters being salvation or things that end up impacting the very timeline and things like that most of us would argue that Everything impacts the timeline.

Everything is related to everything else. And so, you know to the to the color of the tie that you wear one day or something like that. I've used a lot of illustrations about that, but that was our depend also on what he means by occasional okay, as to whether he's trying to establish a categorical libertarian free will or If all he's doing is saying that we act according to our natures then That's conditional and that's not going to establish the kind of libertarianism that he needs.

I think I think he would say that we could act in accordance with our nature. But that there are multiple options that a person can choose libertarian Lee that is consistent with with one's nature. But it but if we could go.