James White vs Tim Stratton (Debate Review)

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 a 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 reintroduce 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 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 had 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 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? 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 were 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 It's a torture thing

It's like you're the reception at the way So I just I just make people wait and I went over had some brownie bites

It's like that. It's like, 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, I want to 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 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 Molin ism is? specifically Molin 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 Molin ism by attacking

Calvinism from multiple different fronts and simply say if That form of Calvinism fails therefore

Molin 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 preacherly freedom and libertarian free will and and Categorical will and 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 Those issues are not unique to Molin ism the solution of Molin ism is unique But why what is the one thing that separates

Molin 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

Molin 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 that 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 determined 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 Multifacet causality and everything else that would go into any type of discussion of of what determinism 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 it's 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 of what it was

And and I was like, how 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 does not come from his will and see I think it'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 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

Mollin 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 Did what did he take time to do and I was

Deeply disappointed 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 is 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 a chunk of change 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 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

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

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 and 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 and 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 that'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

Hmm, 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 sort of look at the guy in the front row and I'm Yeah, I did yeah,

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. Um, yeah, 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 will 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 B 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

If 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 possess

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.

Mm -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 creedually freedom logically prior to the decree and ergo

Molinism 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

Mm -hmm 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 he 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 a 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 can go Okay So just to clarify because I know more of a more of our analytically minded audience would want to know which premise of the argument

Do you disagree with would you take issue with that first one? Would you? It all gets down to the definitions because you're using the term libertarian free.

Well, you're not defining whether you are talking about that in the in the fullest sense of Categorically able to do anything so I Tim would would would would hold to the position of the categorical ability

So so you would need categorical ability So is that the point you would take issue with so premise one humans occasionally possessed libertarian freedom

You'd say wait a minute. You haven't you know, it would you is that a premise that you'd say hold on?

I disagree with that. You haven't demonstrated libertarian freedom from that's topical arguments and your biblical arguments

Well, certainly not from your biblical arguments. I agree Okay But the whole issue of implication as well would have to be

Would have to be teased out there. What do you mean? And what do you mean implies these things that mean applying is consistent standard of exegesis

Actually teaches these things or that you can fight or that you you are actually saying because this is something that Craig does the scripture underdetermines in These areas and therefore you can slide it in there.

Those are two different things. So I would agree. I would agree with that so so if scripture implies both a humans occasionally possessed libertarian freedom,

I would take issue with His attempted defense of libertarian freedom both philosophically and scripturally

And and I think scripture implies needs to be teased out more So so you would say you would disagree and take issue with premise one

Not that you would disagree with the validity of like logical form So if we were to grant one and two with a conclusion to follow you just don't grant that he sufficiently defended premise one

The detail the details are all the definitions. Yes, they're all the definitions even even when that that That proposition refers to God's decree

We've got it. We've got a lot of questions to ask at that point What what do you mean by that because we can go into all sorts of texts where that decree?

included the desires of hearts and And the whole nine yards not passively taking in some counterfactuals, but actually

Positively producing these things and so that's that's what I would like to have seen us get into But that would also be absolutely death for the other side.

So I I can see why we didn't get into it. Okay, so Now, okay.

So his arguments really were supposed to be I mean, I was surprised. I mean I had spoken to I Tim I love you

Tim. I had I mean I've been speaking to you I was speaking to Tim and you know,

I get it Tim is I mean he he loves apologetics He loves I mean, I if I were

Tim and I were debating you I'd have my whole family everyone in their uncle there It'd be you know, it's kind of a big event for for me personally

So I understand I understand he got excited. Okay, that's fine. I get it, but I did tell

Tim. Okay Tim is a bridge builder. This is why he has mere Molin ism He's kind of he's just trying to kind of include as many people as he wants

Okay, I said Tim if you're going to speak to the Calvinist the exegetically minded

Calvinist this is why I think a lot of Calvinists very much resonate with how you defend reformed theology because especially with your debate in on Romans 9 with latent flowers

You literally just walk through the text and can hold your hand and walk through the text and I'm like, yay

Right, he walks the text if you're going to speak to the mall to the Calvinist You need to walk through the text right do what does

I think if I'm debating James White? I would exegete and then I would bring in some of those other considerations that are important as well

And I was it was unfortunate that I mean I told I even told Tim I hope you lose, you know

Going for you, but if I were on your side, here's what I would do and he just didn't do it now that being said he

Did bring up some scripture which I'd like some folks thought that you didn't address

Adequately, I I think it I mean, I think generally speaking you did fine, but I get it some people like I want to unpack that So this is a scripture that comes up all the time and that is

Deuteronomy chapter 30 verses 10 through 20 and I just want to 10 through 20.

Here we go. Okay Let's see here. I got a highlight there So I want to read it for context and I do apologize it's lengthy but I want to read it so that people can get it in their mind and then you could interact with it because This is a big deal for a lot of people

Deuteronomy 30 verses 10 through 20 When you obey the voice of the Lord your

God to keep his commandments and his statutes that are written in this book of the law When you turn to the Lord your

God with all your heart and with all your soul For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you.

Neither is it far off? It is not in heaven that you should say who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us

That we may hear it and do it Neither is it beyond the sea that you should say who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us

That we may hear it and do it But the word is very near to you It is in your mouth and in your heart so that you can do it.

See I have set before you today life and death life and death and Evil if you obey the commandments of the

Lord your God that I command you today By loving the Lord your God by walking in his ways and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rule

Then you shall live and multiply and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of now

This was used as Libertarian freedom look they were able to do it. It's not even hard How would you interact with that that I mean he didn't exegete the passage

He simply read it and kind of added some of his thoughts there But how would you respond to the libertarian free willer that this not so fast.

Mr. Free willer This doesn't demonstrate what you're trying to demonstrate well, these are certainly words that to a regenerate heart are very encouraging and Speak life and to a heart that has a love for God's law and a love for God These things would would make perfect sense but what's amazing to me as No one read

Deuteronomy 28 and 29 which comes right before it the blessings and the cursings That are then repeated by the prophets over and over again chapter 30 after the blessings and the cursings is a exhortation

That was ignored by the vast majority of Israelites except for in the words of the

Greek Septuagint the Lima the remnants It is that remnant that found in these words guidance and light

It was that remnant that found in these it was the 7 ,000 that didn't bow the knee to Baal in the days of Elijah That suffered through the the famine and and the drought they would find these words to speak to them but for the vast majority of Those who fell in the wilderness the vast majority of those who engaged in the rebellion against God And either didn't enter into the promised land or once they're in the promised land

Brought the judgment of God upon Israel and then upon Judah as well they did not hear these words because why because they had hearts of stone and They need to have those hearts of stone taken out and given hearts of flesh.

And so it's just a matter of taking the entire testimony of The Old Testament Scriptures.

I mean like calling Old Testament Scriptures the Hebrew Scriptures as To the nature of man and so to to take one thing like this and then skip over Your valley of dry bones

What what what what's a valley of dry bones supposed to do? What what what does it need? Until there is that supernatural and enlivenment that giving of life

Words like this to the to the heart that is a rebellion against God How does how does any of this?

Actually bring about a change of character. You have to love

God and a heart of stone doesn't love God and so it's it's really a matter of Recognizing the one thing that that Molinists will not hear that we say

God ordains the ends and the means This is a means this is a means text whereby

God Instructs those that he has been gracious to and given them a heart of flesh.

These become words of life But you simply have to you simply have to read the rest of the

Old Testament text to see how many times The people rebelled and rebelled and rebelled no matter how often

God delivered them and God Mercy to them. So would you so would you say then of course, we're not interpreting scripture in isolation.

So You know whether that passage in Deuteronomy 30 is teaching libertarian free will is really irrelevant when in isolation

But you would think that there are more clear Theologically descriptive passages that tell us the nature of man's will when in bondage to sin

So when you take those clear passages and read these passages in the Old Testament, we can kind of have the divine commentary

In those clear passages affect how we interpret those Old Testament passages. I don't want to call them clearer

I'm not saying this is not clear. I'm saying it's not the only text that addresses the heart of man mm -hmm, and that when you you know, just just spend a little time in Jeremiah and The deceitfulness of the heart and the sickness of the heart

He's the weeping prophet because he knows really the condition of man. And so It's not a matter of saying this is obscure and these other ones are more clear

These other ones tell us specific things about our hearts and our rebellion against God that Determine who it is is even going to be able to hear these words

I mean, can we all be honest that for example in the gospel of John seeing and hearing

John John chapter 9 the ones who could see couldn't see the one who couldn't see could see

Why don't you hear the words I'm speaking to you John chapter 8 because you don't belong to God hmm, these are these are this is terminology that's used across Scripture and Who's gonna hear these these words and it's interesting

Deuteronomy 30 is Is used by Paul in regards to what?

the Word of Faith in Christ and And God's the one that has to by the

Spirit By what power do we say Jesus courteous Jesus is

Lord sure spirit of God So, I mean even Paul finds in this text that very same

So and I think too in order for Dr.

Stratton to use that verse in favor of libertarianism Which which implies that categorical ability even just reading that passage

You don't you don't get the categorical ability, right that all things being completely and metaphysically equal

The person could choose other than what they what they do Even that even if the warnings are right there look at verse 17

But if you but if your heart turns away and you won't obey but are drawn away in worship of the gods serve them I declare to you that you shall surely perish.

It is the continuation of The blessings and cursings that just came right thing, you know, they're part of the law as well that but but even though But even even all that aside just that passage itself.

You don't get Categorical even a categorical ability were true Yeah, that's not it

That verse is not that those verses aren't enough to demonstrate it which I think is which is the weakness of his position trying to demonstrate

Molinism being biblical any passage that he's gonna use implies freedom, but it doesn't imply this categorical freedom necessarily

And that's what he needs to what he needs to establish I think which leads me to my neck the next passage and it's a much shorter one 1st

Corinthians chapter 10 Verse 13. I remember dr. Guillaume being young by the way

Guillaume wasn't so happy when you mispronounced his name, but it's okay. He forgives you I did

I Think he called him Guillaume V young if I remember correctly Well, okay

He's totally not French there is no correct way of pronouncing French Look look you don't even the

French have no grounds for ever complaining Because they don't pronounce 70 % of the letters in their words

Okay Oh My goodness, all right

German You know how to pronounce the German person's name you read every letter.

That's right. That's right See look you threw me off my game man. See I remember when Tim says hey you throw me off, too

You're asking about 1st Corinthians 1013, ah yes So when I had Guillaume being young on someone brought this

You're pronouncing it right now. I'm pronouncing it wrong. I've messed up his name so much that now it's impossible for me to get it wrong

So it's Guillaume being young if you want to sound really French big nasal Someone brought this passage up and they said look this passage teaches the categorical ability.

He whispers into his microphone. He says no it doesn't Again because even though it looks like it might you're you're dealing with a with a very subtle Philosophical distinctions and you can't just drag that from an independent text.

And so 1st Corinthians doesn't necessarily teach a conditional or categorical

I mean that we can't read either of our our of our philosophical categories into that We need to let the scripture stand at that point

You don't get that you get to use it as a proof text in my opinion But I did address this during the debate.

I believe you did but but for the sake of people who think you didn't Why don't you unpack it first?

We're trying to make everybody happy Unless I'm Misremembering it.

It's possible that I'm thinking of preparation and not the actual debate. I Recall looking at this and giving the context

And the fact and going all the way back To the fact that this is a or I may have done it on the dividing line.

Okay, so maybe Because I I know that I've also done it else

I Preemptively addressed it. I think on the dividing line as well. So maybe that's what it was.

Okay, but But this is again talking about God's dealings with his people and the fact that This is an example for us

So nevertheless with most of them God was not well pleased they were laid low in the wilderness These things happen as examples for us that we should not crave evil things as they also crave

W idolaters, etc, etc. Let us not act immorality. Let us not try the

Lord Nor grumble. These are all the he's going through all the various Sins of the people of Israel now these things happen them as an example

They are written for our instructions upon whom the ends of the ages come Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.

So this is all of this is very very practical Exhortation again and and this is this is why

I repeat what I said before We believe God ordains the ends and the means Preaching and exhortation is part of the means that God has ordained for the salvation of his people and for the

Sanctification of his people and the edification of his people and everything else and that's what we have here

And so this has the context no temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man

So what temptation all these things that came before? So the people of Israel faced all these things before they failed they've given us our example don't be like them

God is faithful who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able But with the temptation will provide the way of escape that you may be able to endure it.

So when you face temptations Don't be like the people of Israel. What was what was the

I? Like asking people this question because they never almost never know. What was the

Saying the proverb That God hated in both

Jeremiah and Ezekiel. I'll ask you No, great I just I was

I was I was at the hospital two days ago I'm not in a condition to answer theological

Okay, well I just drove home from Texas what do you want Hey, hey, this is the show where I get to put you on the spot and sit comfortably in my

When you coming on the dividing line next time on Radio Free Geneva Eli Ayala exposed yeah, no, it was it was the proverb that the

The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth have been put on edge. Remember? Yes, and more than once the

The prophets had to deal with this idea that people were saying, you know what? We're we're facing we're experiencing this because of what our fathers did.

There's no reason for us to repent The our fathers ate the sour grapes our teeth are put on edge

What that means is we're suffering for what they did. We don't have to we don't have to repent God says no

I'm talking to you They were put in this in these positions and they continued in their sin

You will be put in these positions and God will make a way for you to Not have to do these things that I understand what they're what they're arguing.

They're arguing that in Calvinism We believe that God forces people to do bad things that they don't want to do these things

But God puts a big old theological gun in their back and say do bad things and you and I both know that's not we believe by any stretch the imagination and even though I raised that issue in the debate and I talked about God's restraining of evil

I Never heard him. He I have never heard Tim respond to that ever

What what I think is interesting and after having spoken to Tim some years ago

He said that if he wasn't a Molinist, he would be what he calls a mysterion Calvinist and what he means by that is see you know, it has nothing to do with the

Marvel Universe a Mysterion Calvinist is someone who affirms that God determines all things that man is sufficiently free

But that it's just a mystery as to how that all works out Now that now now that's interesting some

Calvinists have taken that position, but if you were to even grant that possibility You're granting that there may be an explanation where those things are perfectly logical

Which would kind of undercut his argument that says something in the long lines that Libertarian free will needs to be the case because of a

B and C, you know his argument, right? Does that make sense? Well, I've heard him. I've heard him talk about that So I may have actually heard him say something similar to that If if you're if you're using the term mystery in the way that I I said

God Creates time he foreordains whatsoever happens in time and as a result men are

Responsible they're culpable and what happens in time is real and important. He he sees a

Fisher between them and I say and if you ask how that is Then you also have to answer how did

God feed the children of Israel in the wilderness. How did God raise Jesus from the dead? How did

God part the sea? How did? There's all sorts of these things. It's it's strange that the

Molinist will not allow For the supernatural when it comes to the issue of creation and time

That's the one area where everywhere else they go. Yeah. Sure. Yeah Jesus raised in the dead feed the 5 ,000 no problem with with with the supernatural and all those things and you go and so the reason that creation of time can't be supernatural is

What again and you end up with these philosophical arguments that are really not derived from Scripture I don't see the scripture writers struggling with these things now

Okay, what I found interesting and maybe you can unpack this and you did discuss it a little bit in the debate but his

And this is kind of this is the bridge. This is the bridge builder aspect of Tim He tried to use the London Baptist Confession, you know your confession

It's bridge bill it could be both right So it's bridge building in the sense that he's trying to find a point of contact with you

So that you could see his position now I think a guy that I'm fencing with tries to find a point of contact with me, too

It's the end of his sword in my chest All right, fine a a a devious and nefarious strategy that he

Okay, all right his strategy to use the London Baptist Confession to almost suggest that the type of freedom that he was talking

About is affirmed to some degree in the London Baptist Confession and so I from the kind of the chatter that was going on after the bait a lot of people seem to have issue with your use of creaturely freedom and what

Tim was defining as Libertarian freedom so for clarification Can you define for us what you meant and be very as specific as you can because I know a lot of people

Nitpick on the words and well, he didn't say this and he didn't say that. What do you mean? Specifically by creaturely freedom and how is that different than Tim's definition of libertarianism?

well the the framers of London Baptist Confession and myself

Put the statement that God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass before any of the other statements now, they immediately said and this establishes

You know man's will doesn't violate all these types of things but they started there and This is where I struggle to follow some of the argumentation on the subject of Molinism and Just don't find it

To be my bailiwick and the strongest argument against these things. Mm -hmm. And that is I feel that once we enter into Making the creature the center of the answer where We've we've lost the ground in other words that's why

I and Some people would fault me this fine. That's fine Other people want to approach this from other perspectives leave it to them.

But the reason that I focus upon The subjunctive conditionals counterfactuals everything else is because I see that as being the most direct assault upon the role of God in this subject when we're talking about creatures

Adam versus fallen Adam and Have to find out where someone is on the subject of original sin and everybody's all over the planet on that anymore and what they mean by depravity and what they mean by fallen this and I Just don't see it.

You end up Able to really get anywhere. And so when I say creaturely freedom

The reason I'm using creaturely is to distinguish man from God God has a freedom that mankind does not and the realm of man's freedom is not

Autonomy, it's in the realm of creation. He is God's creature and Therefore what happens in time?

This is first of all, it's all we're held accountable We don't we can't know the divine decree

We can't be held accountable to it and the scriptures do not say that we ever are

God gives us his revelation of his will his prescriptive will that's what we're held accountable for and So my use of the term creaturely freedom is

To emphasize the fact that it is the freedom of a creature in time time that God himself has created and ordered and This takes us back to where you got me in trouble originally before And that was when you asked me a question

When I was on with you 2020 whenever that was

During lockdown whenever I think it was like this November December somewhere. Okay, and I Found out later by listening to later podcasts when you had

Tim on That you were asking his questions Mm -hmm, and I I've never heard his questions.

I I'm not I don't read his stuff I had I've had to read all this stuff because of you.

Okay, so So My answer that You didn't find helpful and he didn't find didn't even understand

Comes back to this issue again Mm -hmm, and that is when he started talking about Christmas and nothing to do with Christmas It had to do with the fact that creaturely freedom is in the created realm

We are creatures and since Jesus became man, that means what happens in this temporal realm has

Fundamental meaning and God assigns it that fundamental meaning and in fact

It is the very place where God has chosen to demonstrate his glory in the in the entire redemptive act that he is that he is engaged in and so if The eternal can enter into this.

It's not a puppet show It's not a Muppet show. It's not automatons

And it's not and it's not in the Marvel Universe either it is real it is

And if it weren't this way It is interesting to me. I don't know if you ever thought about this, but the philosophical philosophically minded folks one thing they almost never really touch on or even think about are the

Spiritual forces that the scriptures tell us are A part of the creation around us and if God was not sovereign over what happened in time

We would be slaves those spiritual forces But we are not because God's in control of those things and we better be thankful that he is

But this the philosophical folks. Where do you how do you how do you put? Angelic and demonic realms into modus ponens and modus tolens

Doesn't fit So that's why I I say that that kind of approach

Just isn't big enough to deal with everything that scripture actually actually teaches us

So when I'm saying creaturely freedom, I'm not trying to say. Oh, this is some special kind of freedom that somehow

Answers libertarian free will I'm saying the Bible says we're creatures and the

Bible addresses texts like Deuteronomy chapter 32 and So there's something real and what is being communicated to them now the whole biblical teaching is yeah

It's real and when God in his grace frees you from slavery to sin Those words mean everything to you.

They they they give you confidence and they give you hope and But I I can't get

I can't escape the fact that my Lord and Savior said if you continue my words you my disciples

Indeed, you should know the truth. The truth shall make you free. I Have to be set free

That's that that that's the only thing a Christian I think can do and can come to a meaningful conclusion

I don't see any peace being found in philosophical definitions of what

How you can philosophically define Creaturely freedom under the sovereign decree of God and what's strange is

You're dealing with Molin ism You're dealing with people because of the history of Molin ism because of what

Molina was doing at that time. Mm -hmm Who will affirm? In some fashion a a very particular

Providence a very Minute Aspect of God's decree of every every aspect of creation the one difference being that form is determined not by something that comes forth from God's will mm -hmm, but from Counterfactuals of human freedom and just real quick I know a lot of people seem to make this mistake when you say when you refer to Molina I don't think and you could correct me if I'm wrong

I don't think you're making the argument that because a Jesuit came up with the with this theological theory that it's wrong because of that but mentioning that it is coming from a

Jesuit is Important to understand the broader context and motivation And I think that's an important kind of thing to keep in the back burner when we're plowing through this

I yeah A lot of people accuse you of committing the genetic fallacy and I've heard when

I hear you say those sorts of things It doesn't seem like that's what you're trying to say cuz I and not and and and not a single one of them has ever debated a

Jesuit either, but I have the the reason to mention

Molina is To recognize the form of the argument has a specific purpose

It didn't just he wasn't just sitting around on an apple tree one day. I said oh, I'm gonna come up with no

He was fulfilling the command of the

Jesuit Order and his general Ignatius Loyola to find a way to deal with the

Reformation and so it is formed in such a way that its definitional aspects are

Intended to accomplish a specific purpose if if you want to say well, we don't have to worry about that I'd have to worry why this guy came up with it.

Well, okay I'm a church historian and I deal with Roman Catholics all the time. Mm -hmm and The reality is that the very essence of the things that many modern

Molinas do not want to defend Were the things that Molina came up with to accomplish a specific purpose and it's fascinating to me that the first claim that Tim makes

After the debate is Determinism was the big loser and It's a specific kind of determinism because most people

Almost every Arminian I know would say that Tim is a determinants Right.

I mean he says God decreed the fall. Well, you do have Arminians who think that Molinism is too deterministic for their right for their taste

If you have mixed across the board, but yeah, I definitely hear what you're saying there So, I don't think

If people want to go oh you're Creating the genetic files if I said this argument is wrong because a

Jesuit made it up Then I would when I debate Jesuits would have very short debates

Obviously, that's not the point The point is if you as a

Protestant ignore the Jesuit origination You're probably missing the whole purpose of this this discussion and I can't stop folks from doing that But if they take my church history class, they will fail

All right, well, um, would it be okay I mean we're at the we're I mean

I don't would you be okay taking a couple of live audience questions It's okay. If if you don't think we can go we can go to the 30 mark you up.

Okay. I appreciate that first I'd like to thank a Richie for his 4999 super chat.

Thank you so much for that Richie. I appreciate it. I do apologize ahead of time There's so many questions and comments.

It's it seems like everyone just wants to debate you. Dr. Why what's going on? Just not just on Molinism either

No But I'm gonna be picking questions at random, so I hope that I've asked fair questions for people on the other side

You know, I'm trying to you know Phrase these questions in such a way where dr. White could address them and that the opposite side can say hey

That's a good answer or hey, maybe I disagree but thank you for asking the question and maybe there's some further clarification

So try my best to do that. I'm gonna be picking questions at random. So I do apologize There's just too many for me.

I do this all by myself all by my loan I don't have a cool, you know, rich Pierce behind the glass So I do apologize, but um, here's a question from The provisionist perspective question, what does white think?

Quote it is not too difficult mean in that Deuteronomy 30 passage In other words, if it's not teaching libertarian freedom, then what's the point of saying?

It's not too difficult It seems like they're saying hey the choice should be easy to pick the right thing

You know, you're not being withheld by God's determining forces Well, once again, we do see that the people of Israel did eventually come up with the idea that it was too difficult

Because of what had happened to their their fathers It is not too difficult for the regenerate heart for the heart of flesh

Yes, if we Love God and have been changed by God's grace Then we love his law and we desire to live in such a fashion as to glorify him

But what do you hear from those who? Refuse to obey

God's commands. Well, it's it's too difficult. We can't do that That's what people of Israel said we we are surrounded by people with other gods

And it's too difficult to just worship the one true God because they they will attack us for that, etc, etc, etc

So there was a context to the people of Israel and then there's a context to us today. It's not too difficult for whom for whom that's just let the rest of the entire revelation of Scripture speak

It is too difficult for those who are spiritually dead

But provisionists don't believe that there really is anybody who's spiritually dead so They they might struggle with that but you you have to deal with heart of stone heart of flesh

It's right there in the text you gotta let the whole thing speak. All right. Thank you idol killer says

Question does James believe believe God thinks is there activity in the mind of God?

My thoughts are not your thoughts God God God himself Uses such terminology, so I don't even know what that question is supposed to supposed to be referring to Yeah it might be

Discursive thinking I don't think God thinks discursively like one thought after another because then that would imply that would imply time within God's name

I suppose but the fact is God Calls us to think his thoughts after him.

He Refers to And it's all in the creaturely realm so you have to recognize that God as Calvin says

Babbles to us as to as to children and so he speaks in that in that fashion to us in that in that way doesn't mean that God has come up with new ideas and new thoughts and oh, let's try a new way.

We've not thought of before Okay Author bear says a little off -topic.

I've heard James speak about John 753 through chapters 8 and 11 and I totally agree with what he says about it

James Why do you think this passage keeps getting put in Bibles? John chapter 7.

Yes, I'm 53 to 11. It's the percocet adultery He started the one taking an adultery.

It's I'll be real quick. It's It's not found in the earliest Manuscripts of the

Gospel of John and in fact Amazingly, most people don't know this in some manuscripts.

It's found in other places in John and in some manuscripts It's not found in John at all.

It's found in two different places in Luke and so The first manuscript that contains it is

Codex Vesic And if a Jancis from the 5th century, which I call the Living Bible of the early of the early church

It's one of the most unreliable manuscripts that we have and so It's not a matter of why does it keep getting put in?

The answer that would be tradition It's in the majority of Greek manuscripts it became customary it's many people it's

Dan Wallace's Favorite Bible story that's not in the Bible according to him and so There are translations.

I think the NET Removes it if I recall correctly Obviously, it's always there and an end note or something along those lines, but If you really want to know the answer, it's that Bible publishers are scared to death

That they're gonna end up with a group of mad people parading around and from their headquarters with signs

That's literally why it is Okay I believe you

Paul day asks could dr White address the fact that the Apostle Paul exegeted the

Deuteronomy passage in Romans 10 and that he gave a different exegesis than Stratton did

Well, that's what I mentioned was that he he specifically uses it to intend to refer to that confession of faith in Christ, so I did

I did Mention that and I I would think that that would be relevant in the context of the fact that it's also in 910 -11 that you have the remnant the nature of faith all that type of stuff coming in there and so I would

I would agree that that's That's an important aspect. That's why I brought it up earlier.

Is it that's not how Paul used it. Hmm. Okay. Thank you Thanks for your super chat.

Dr. Bob. Dr Bob asks can God actuate a world in which as a true subjunctive conditional

Eli wears a coogee while discussing subjunctive conditionals with dr. White Yeah, I think

I think that now he couldn't actualize world where rich would do that Okay, but I I think if I if I like bought one for you that you're a soft -hearted guy and Even if you hated it

You would you would you would just not be able to if you if you know knowing how close

I am to death's door If you bought me a coogee

I would wear it in every live stream Consider an honor. I totally would well,

I got I've got to find the right colors for you, but they're getting harder and brown I'm brown. So it gets something that brings out my my hispanic natural brown colors

That's right. All right. Thank you for that. Dr. Bob question. Will dr. White appear on crit on capturing

Christianity would love dr White's thoughts also would Eli have Cameron on once you answer that first question

Would you would you go on capturing Christianity if you were invited? Um, I Don't know

I'd have to know what the context would be probably not Okay And for my part of the question would

I have Cameron on? Sure, it just depends on what topic we discuss I I did reach out to him a while back to discuss a topic that I thought would have been helpful for Regardless of what perspective one comes from theologically, but yeah.

Well, thank you for that Let's see here. Did it do do we'll just do two more and then

I'll let you go I'm Afraid this you'll never want to come on again. I've bothered you far too much.

I got to get my last my last Bits here. Let's see Well, I hope you're enjoying yourself,

I hope you've enjoyed the interviews the times you've come on I Wasn't actually complaining.

I'm just letting everybody know that you know People say well, it's

Molin ism thing. Yeah, you seem to be on it all the time Eli's All right, so here's

Pine Creek, this is our resident atheist you've actually Interacted with some of his his stuff and I'm sure you don't follow him.

I think I did once when I was in Australia Yeah, yeah, but um, but he's asking the question that's relevant to our topic.

What is Molin ism trying to accomplish? It seems to me any problem a Molin is has with Calvinism They still have because God still created knowing what would happen

He's right That was my argument in the cross -examination,

I don't see that the theodicy works but fundamentally from their perspective

By affirming middle knowledge they can say that yes God decreed all of this but everybody did it freely and Therefore the problem of evil is solved something along those lines but you're right if if God knew exactly what they would do and then he orchestrates all the

Conditions to put them into the position of doing that A lot of us struggle with the idea is how that in any way solves anything.

Mm -hmm. All right. Thank you JT mole. Thank you for your super chat

JT asked if God created all things including time itself When or how does he act linearly?

And bring things about from a timeless realm. God bless you both and thanks for doing this

It's not a linear action You're The problem that we struggle with is even our language is tense based and so everything is linear because of the rational time

But if God creates all of time and he himself is not bound by time then he can create without Then trapping himself in that to where he has to move along and be quote -unquote doing stuff.

He's I mean, I mean, this is one area where where language does fail us because We are time bound creatures and we drag our

Limitations into every description we we have of God It really is a it really is

When I was young ground off everybody else did this I liked sitting around and trying to think of eternity until you started getting dizzy

Because we because you really you really can't do that and so it's it's not a matter of How does he act?

and bring about things from the timeless realm as if he's

Not created all of it as a as a whole and then his actions in Providentially Creating these things look to us as if he is experiencing time with us.

How else could it be? But the assertion that's being made is that is not something that is limiting to God's Limiting to God's being it's not like he's now trapped in time or something

Sure. All right, and my last and final question is from the sire Also sometimes known as the fake

Greg Bonson. He's always got some Interesting and fun questions, but this is a nice practical one to end on what books would you recommend on Molin ism from a

Calvinist perspective? you probably would have Far better answer to that than that I that I would have because I'm just primarily familiar with With some of the

Molinist works. I I have a number of the Four views works where people went back and forth and discussed stuff like that, but I would think that you'd have a bibliography at hand better than I would

Mm -hmm. Well, I would say that because one of the twin pillars of Molin ism is libertarian free will

I would just get books that critique libertarian free will so I'm not sure if there are books directly dealing with the grounding objection

That would be to use be useful enough for the average person when the grounding objection issue Comes up.

It's usually very philosophically dense But if you want to take a look at books that critique

Libertarian free will I would look into Guillaume Benyons work There's also that's how

I pronounced it that that's right. That's right. I don't have my library in front of me Maybe maybe in a future video.

I'll kind of go through some books that might be helpful But anything that critiques libertarian free will is going to be relevant to the

Molin ism discussion since it's one of the key Pillars now you do have some Molinist who kind of differ some will say well, you know

It's not one of the pillars Molin ism is just a view of God's omniscience so you need to ask questions as to the sort of Molinist you're dealing with but I would say attacking libertarian freedom and With the grounding objection,

I'm not sure. I haven't really read much at the popular level regarding that. So sorry about that well

Obviously turrets and discussion is still extremely valuable. Oh, yeah Francis turrets and that's right So and and and even just being well -versed in some of the

Reformed confessions With how to how it describes the will and the biblical references that it that it provides

All right. Well Dr. White you have engaged in over 200 debates.

No, I haven't know what 176 Okay, why did

I know if I counted debates like Eric and Cantor I've done over 5 ,000 A Guilty pleasure admission the two days before before I went to the hospital.

I watched your critique of Ergin canner. I don't know. I have no idea.

That's why you got sick. No that Destroyed your immune system. I just I know why the first time you ever came on I think it was before we went live.

You saw my degrees from Liberty and you said oh Is that Liberty and I'm like, yeah, that's where I graduated from and you said did

Ergin Cantor sign those Like you know what I'm gonna go listen to those so I listened to it and maybe that is the reason why

I got sick I'm not sure. It'd be it could be so so was that the first time you would you would you knew all that stuff?

No but it was it was I cut sometimes I revisit some of your old stuff because not because the the

I'm going downhill. I agree. Yeah. No. No, I I thought it was excellent picking a part of that But anyway, you've engaged in a hundred and seventy some -odd debates you've prepared for all of them

You do the dividing line you teach at a seminary you agree to come on to things like this for Completely unknown person like myself.

I thank you so much for your work in the ministry I know that there are people who are gonna watch this and say at the end of the day

I disagree with everything. Dr. White has to say or at the end of the day I disagree with everything Stratton had to say

But I just want to thank you for putting in the energy and the work in ministry Regardless of where people end up in terms of their views

I am very grateful for the work that you put in it has been a blessing to me And I'm sure it's been a blessing to countless others.

So thank you so much. Dr. White coming on I appreciate you're the next generation You got to get yourself feeling better so you can get back to work and be energetic and do all your

Presuppositional stuff because I'm gonna tell you There's a lot of people coming after presuppositional ones these days, so You got it.

You got to be out there doing your thing. We all do so keep up the good work well, you're inspiration to all of us and I hope to To accomplish just an inch of what you've accomplished so far

So, I don't know how you do it But uh, I was having a conversation with someone I was like, how does he keep his family together with all the stuff?

He does like how does he balance at all? It's a pretty I'm an empty nester. I'm a grandfather and Yeah, I I wish

I could get much more done than I'm getting done. So, you know the time the time is is is short

Amen. Well, thanks again and guys just as a heads up on March 3rd. I'll be having dr. Scott Oliphant on to talk about Apologetics and persuasion.

He's got a new book coming out from a presuppositional perspective, of course And so we're gonna keep it going. I know

I have a mixed Guest come on, but I do like to get on my presup you know

Topic so that we can kind of continue to promote this very powerful and what I believe to be a very biblical apologetic

So stay tuned for that March 3rd, and I'll keep you guys updated for more. Thank you so much for watching. Dr. White once again

Thank you so much for giving me your time and that is all for this episode. Take care and god bless. Bye.