White Stratton Debate-Is Molinism Biblical

Good evening. Good evening. I know some of you have waited about an hour to begin. So it's about seven o 'clock. So let's begin. Good evening. Welcome to our debate on the question tonight. Is Molin ism biblical?

I'm Evan McClanahan. I'm the pastor of First Lutheran here. And I'll be the moderator for tonight's debate again. Thank you for coming out. I know it's crowded. It's a it's a sellout crowd. So I appreciate your patience in that regard.

Few logistics if you're in need of a bathroom. Go next door. Oh. We're okay. If you're in need of a bathroom, you can go to these doors behind me. But hopefully you've already gone and you can stay seated for the next two hours.

But there's a hallway behind me and there are bathrooms there. We want to be as hospitable as we can. Bios for each speaker. I think you're well aware of both speakers for tonight. They are in the program.

So in the interest of time, I'll leave you to read those just know that dr James White is the bald white guy with the beard and dr. Tim Stratton is the bald white guy with the beard. So, I mean they they they are brothers and they could be brothers so.

Both speakers are going to be using this somewhat antiquated Screen here, so I'm going to be turning off a few lights. So don't be startled when that happens and there's going to be some transition between each time for speaking.

We will have a brief reception afterwards if you want to Meet the speakers, but I'm going to say in advance. Please. Keep your time very short in respecting of a very travel-weary debate debate prepared speakers tonight.

But it'll be in the education building next door best way to get there go out the door. You came in walk around to to either door to the education building behind the large magnolia tree. Reasonable faith will have a table in the room far that way down the hall.

Accordance software will have a table and books in the room closer this way in the education building. I also work with a group called theology on tap. So there's some material there if you want to pick it up if you like theological debate conversation.

It's every other month less formal than this but still fun. So if you're in Houston, you want to come out for that grab a grab a brochure for that our format should be in the program. But 20 minutes opening remarks for each speaker.

Dr Stratton is going to go first because he's answering in the affirmative on the question is Molinism biblical. Eight minute rebuttals each there will be 40 minutes of cross-examination total. That's 10 minutes 10 minutes.

10 minutes 10 minutes. Five minute closings and we're going to have 20 minutes approximately for Q &A. We're not going to get to all of the questions. So if I don't choose yours, it's nothing personal probably.

I'm going to go for the most legible. So if you want your question answered it needs to be readable. And I'm going to go back and forth between each speakers. I would ask the speaker to give about a one minute answer with about a 30-second rejoinder.

I'm going to pick those up. This is for my volunteers as well. I'm going to pick those up after the second 10 minute cross-examination. That'll give me about 30 minutes to find good questions. So if you have a question going in go ahead and feel free to write it down.

We'll pick those up in the middle right in the middle of the cross-examination section. With those formalities behind us as both of our speakers are Christian. That's not always the case in a debate, but it is the case tonight.

I would like to offer a word of prayer. Let us pray. Heavenly father we give you thanks that we can gather in freedom to consider Your glory and might your nature and will. Give us humility to learn that we might know you better.

Serve you better and work together to bring about a better world. Bless our speakers james and timothy and our audience. That the truth would be magnified and that truth would lead us to you in the name of jesus we pray amen.

I would ask our first Speaker, dr. Stratton to come forward. At this time you may welcome. Good evening to everyone watching this debate. Thank you for taking theology. So seriously and to dr. James white.

It's an honor to have this conversation with you. Thank you, sir. Well james and I disagree on tonight's topic, but we have two things in common. We are brothers in christ. And we never have a bad hair day.

Well, although this is an in-house debate. Outsiders as paul refers to them in colossians 4 5 are watching closely if white's view of god prevails. Atheists are justified in their non-belief. This is because in white's view god is not merely the author of evil.

But he causes and determines every single evil thought and action. Yes on white's view god actually makes evil happen by way of cause and effect. This leads to what is known as the problem of evil the greatest objection raised against the knowledge of god.

If molinism is true, however, the problems of evil are defeated. So this debate matters. Let's get down to business. Is molinism biblical before answering that question. What does it mean for a doctrine to be biblical as james has written?

The only folks who are truly biblical are those who believe all the bible has to say on a given topic. Obviously a doctrine can be explicitly taught in scripture however. Doctrines can also be inferred from the biblical data if one the doctrine is consistent with and does not contradict scripture.

And two the biblical data supports the core tenets of the doctrine. Since we're examining scripture to find logical contradictions. We must presuppose Logic and the rules of reason before examining the text.

By assuming logic and reason we can infer truths about god that are not explicitly taught in scripture. An example of this is the trinity. The trinity while not explicitly taught in scripture Is both consistent with the whole of scripture and backed by the biblical data around god's nature.

Such as the divinity of christ the divinity of the holy spirit. And how they share the attributes of god in this sense. Although the word trinity is found nowhere in scripture. The concept of the trinity is biblical.

For similar reasons if the trinity is biblical then molinism is biblical. What is meant by molinism? It's the conjunction of propositions god possesses middle knowledge and humans possess libertarian freedom.

What's middle knowledge. According to kirk mcgregor it's simply god's knowledge of all things that would happen. In every possible set of circumstances an omnipotent god could create. What's libertarian freedom?

It refers to a person's choice action evaluation or judgment that is not causally determined by something or someone else. Tyson james puts it this way. Libertarian freedom is the ability to choose such that antecedent conditions are insufficient to causally determine one's choice.

These definitions of libertarian freedom hold whether or not there are alternative possibilities. However, if one does possess opportunities to choose among alternative possibilities in the real world.

Then one is not determined by something or someone else. With biblical data in mind. We can also understand libertarian freedom in this manner. The opportunity to exercise an ability to choose between at least two options.

Each of which is compatible with one's nature in a circumstance where the prior conditions are insufficient To causally determine the agent's choice. That's a fancy way of saying the ability to do otherwise.

Determinism the idea that antecedent conditions are causally sufficient for an effect aka causal determinism. Exhaustive divine determinism. Ed the idea that god determines all effects, especially all things about humanity.

Which would include all desires thoughts beliefs actions behaviors evaluations and judgments. It's important to note that antecedent conditions are either sufficient or Insufficient to causally necessitate all effects.

Compatibilism. The thesis held by many calvinists that some kind of freedom and or moral responsibility are compatible with determinism with ed in mind. Compatibilism is the idea that god determines all of a person's desires thoughts beliefs actions behaviors evaluations And judgments, but somehow the person is still free and or morally responsible for how god made them think and act.

Predestination the divine foreordaining of all that will happen. To clarify both calvinists and molinus affirm predestination via god's decree prior to actual creation. The disagreement between calvinists like james and molinus like me is not over predestination of all created reality.

But rather how god predestines all created reality. With that in mind i'll provide four key contentions as to why all biblically faithful christians should affirm Molinism. As an analytic theologian i'll appeal to the careful definitions I just provided along with the god-given tools of logic and reason to make a case from the biblical text.

I will also demonstrate since dr White says that only god has libertarian freedom that his view of exhaustive divine determinism Edd or edd not only leads to absurdities But also provides a death blow to the trustworthiness of scripture and any assurance of salvation.

Indeed, I contend that molinism is biblical and edd is not biblical. Consider my argument. One if scripture implies both a that humans occasionally possess libertarian freedom and b All human activity is predestined before creation then scripture implies molinism.

Two scripture implies both a and b. Three therefore scripture implies molinism. This syllogism is valid. So if the premises can be supported by scripture then any bible-believing christian rejecting molinism for any reason Seems to be in opposition to what the scriptures teach tonight.

I'll defend four key contentions that if true Demonstrate why my argument passes contention number one. The doctrine that humans occasionally possess libertarian freedom is supported by the biblical data.

First corinthians 10 13 through 15. No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability. But with the temptation he will also provide a way of escape that you may be able to endure it.

Therefore my beloved flee from idolatry. I speak as to sensible people judge for yourselves what I say. The context has everything to do with the definition of libertarian freedom since God commands us to reason together.

Isaiah 118 consider the following one. If Christians possess the opportunity to exercise an ability to choose among a range of options each compatible with their Regenerated nature at a given moment then Christians possess libertarian freedom.

To at the moment of temptation Christians possess the opportunity to exercise an ability to choose between giving into temptation or taking the way of escape God promises to provide. Three therefore Christians possess libertarian freedom.

Moreover Paul follows this all-important verse with another comment heavily implying libertarian freedom. Think about first corinthians 10 15. I speak as to sensible people judge for yourselves what I say.

If someone or something other than you determines all of your judgments Then you cannot judge for yourself on any matter. If how I guide my thinking is ultimately Determined by and under the control of something or someone else then I do not have the control condition required for rational responsibility to support my claim regarding first corinthians 10 15.

Consider the following one. If God determines white to affirm false belief X in the actual world Then white does not possess the opportunity to exercise an ability to infer a better or true belief about X in the actual world.

To if ed is true Then God causally determines all Christians including white to affirm false theological beliefs. No one's theology is infallible. Three. If God determines all Christians to affirm some false theological beliefs Then white stands in no position to know which of his theological affirmations are true and which of his affirmations are false.

For if white does not stand in a position to rationally affirm his theological beliefs Then white possesses a defeater against a reason to doubt his theological beliefs. Five. If white possesses reason to doubt his theological beliefs then white cannot rationally affirm his theological beliefs.

Six. Therefore if ed is true white cannot rationally affirm his theological beliefs. Now this argument Demonstrates that if ed is true Then it's impossible to rationally infer true beliefs and judge for yourselves as Paul commands in first corinthians 10 15.

No, if God determines you to affirm a false belief There's nothing you can do about it. No matter how hard you try you cannot judge for yourself and infer the truth. That's absurd. Moreover, if ed is true and you cannot judge for yourselves, then you cannot rationally affirm theological claims of knowledge.

Inferring true beliefs over false ones and rationally affirming claims of knowledge are vital attributes of a rationally responsible person. This active use of reason is illusory if that is true and thus if ed is true Then humanity is not rationally responsible for anything.

We passively think and are ultimately determined to believe according to whites ed view. You are nothing but a passive cog as John DePoe says at the mercy of the whims of a deity of deception. Who determines all people to affirm false theological beliefs.

Now if the author of scripture is a deity of deception? Knowing the original Greek does not help. Why trust what was written in the original languages if the author is untrustworthy. Moreover if a god of mischief assured you of salvation.

Do you really have assurance of salvation on? The Molinus view however, God is not a deity of deception or a god of mischief. No. God is a maximally great being and you are a free thinker who can take thoughts captive first corinthians 10 5.

Before they take you Colossians 2 8 accordingly. You are not a passive cog at the mercy of the whims of a deity of deception. No if Molin ism is true. You are an active and rational agent created in the likeness of a supernatural and maximally great God by his grace.

God has revealed truth and desires all people to know the truth first Timothy 2 4 not just all kinds of people. But all people. God does not determine every human to affirm false theological beliefs. Think about it and as Paul would say judge for yourselves what I say.

The Apostle Paul the same guy who wrote Romans 9 is clear that regenerated Christians possess a strong sense of libertarian freedom. Moses goes further and explains that even the unregenerate have the freedom to choose among alternative options.

Consider some highlights from Moses and Deuteronomy 30 10 through 20. Now what I'm commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. No, the word is very near you. It's in your mouth and in your heart so that you may obey it.

See I set before you today life and prosperity death and destruction. This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death. Blessings and curses now choose life so that you and your children may live.

Moses commands the Israelites to make a choice between alternative possibilities to follow God or not. They have a range of options from which to choose. Between life and death between blessings and curses and Moses pleads with them to choose life making it clear that they actually Possess the opportunity and ability to make this choice.

It's up to them and not determined by things external to them. Moses is clear that they possess the ability to do it and that it's not even too difficult for them to make this choice in The actual circumstance in which they find themselves.

He says that you may do it. This implies that you can do it. This is clear biblical support for libertarian freedom in A nutshell. I've offered multiple biblical texts from Paul and Moses supporting the idea that humans possess libertarian freedom.

Indeed these passages of scripture supporting libertarian freedom are much clearer than any supposed proof text for exhaustive divine determinism. To counter my first contention, dr White must exegete from scripture that all these folks described in scripture really only had one option compatible with their natures in these specific circumstances and that God predestines all things via Determinism.

Well now that libertarian freedom has been shown to be supported by scripture. Let's move to contention number two. The doctrine of divine predestination is supported by the biblical data. I don't need to share all the biblical data supporting exhaustive predestination in tonight's debate because both dr White and I affirm this much the passage.

However that demands the most attention is found in a letter written by Paul in Ephesians 1 4 we read of something that happened prior to Genesis 1 1. God shows us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before him.

Paul makes it clear that God Predestined according to his purpose who works all things after the counsel of his will Ephesians 1 11. Accordingly, God doesn't merely predestine some things or all kinds of things.

But all things work according to God's plan before creation. Paul with his words predestined purpose and counsel of his will Describes what Abbott concludes the words all things seems to imply an exhaustive view of predestination.

Well, this is exactly what the Molinist affirms. Bottom line. The Bible clearly teaches two things. A Humans possess libertarian freedom and be human activity is predestined before creation. So why does scripture imply Molinism?

Contention number three. It's logically impossible to causally determine a libertarian free choice. Recall the precise definitions offered at the beginning of my speech with these definitions in mind.

It's just as impossible for God to determine a libertarian free choice as it would be for God to create a married bachelor. Ed entails that prior conditions are sufficient to causally determine all effects including all human thoughts beliefs choices actions sins and evils.

And Libertarian freedom entails that prior conditions are insufficient for these things. So if Ed is true libertarian freedom is false and if libertarian freedom is true Ed is false. So my third contention is true by definition.

This brings us to contention number four middle knowledge is the only way to predestine a libertarian free choice since a responsible reading of scripture implies that all things are predestined prior to creation and that some things are free in a Libertarian sense and since it's logically impossible to causally determine a libertarian free choice by definition.

The only option left to consider is the middle knowledge option. But why is it the case that Molinism is a biblical inference just because these contentions have been affirmed? Consider the fact that if predestination prior to creation is true Then there seems to be only two ways for God to ensure it.

God could determine everything to occur exactly as predestined. No libertarian freedom or God could use his middle knowledge to ensure what he has Predestined by creating a world in which he knew how free creatures would freely choose.

But remember we've already examined scripture implying libertarian freedom. Indeed Moses made it clear that the Israelites had the power and opportunity To choose either life or death and that it wasn't even too hard for them that they could do it.

Ezekiel 33 5 and 11 implies both God's middle knowledge and libertarian freedom as it Exemplifies the fact that God does not desire the death of the wicked and invites the wicked to choose. Otherwise if they had heeded the warning they would have saved themselves.

This implies middle knowledge say to them as surely as I live declares the sovereign Lord. I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked. But rather that they turn from their ways and live turn turn from your evil ways.

Why will you die people of Israel? But if James is correct, God is imploring them to do something. They cannot do. It's like God commanding a person that he determined to be born without arms to play basketball and shoot a left-handed layup and then warning Them of the consequences if they don't know these people do not have to die.

They were not determined by God to reject God. That's absurd and an irresponsible reading of the text. Since scripture affirms libertarian freedom. We know that God does not predestine all things by way of determinism.

Middle knowledge is the only option. So with my four contentions in place It seems rational and responsible to conclude what my original argument proposes that the Bible teaches both libertarian freedom and predestination.

There is and holding to Molin ism indeed thinking logically about all the biblical data. It seems to me that Molin ism is the most biblically faithful and logically consistent view of God's sovereignty to counter my case Dr. White must do more than cite scripture Molinists already affirmed.

He must show that either one the Bible precludes Molin ism or two that it's invalid to infer a view from scripture. Since his own published work however and first concepts not explicitly taught in scripture white seems to concede the second point.

This leaves him with a monumental challenge of showing that the Bible precludes Molin ism by dealing with my four contentions. That's what dr. White's got to do if he does anything to the contrary. Don't be distracted.

No matter what approach white takes ask your ask yourself is the Bible teaching us that God commands us to do one thing. But God determines us to do something else. Does God expect us to make decisions that we are in capable of making or does the Bible expect us to make?

Decisions because we can do it just as Moses says. I challenged dr White to produce one single Bible verse or passage in Support of Ed that cannot be just as easily or better explained by Molin ism. So in closing, let me reiterate that non-christians are watching.

This is important because if whites view is true The only God has libertarian freedom then the problem of evil provides justification for the atheist non-belief. Since God actually makes every instance of evil happen by way of cause and effect.

This includes Satan's Rebellion the fall of man Hitler's Holocaust and as dr. White has previously affirmed this even includes child rape. If Molin ism is true. However, God does not cause and determine these things.

Indeed if Molin ism is true. All the problems of evil are defeated. Just like that.

Well, good evening. You can take a breath now. I think we were all holding our breath. Brother Stratton speaks very very quickly and I don't know about you, but I was within 20 feet of the screen and the font was too small for me.

So I I have no idea what was just said but. So Is Molin ism biblical? The the weight is upon brother Stratton to demonstrate that by fully explaining to you what Molin ism is actually saying. Not proving his case by attacking Calvinism, which is what you just heard.

That's not a proof of the case. That's not I'm gonna prove my case by attacking that over there because mine isn't the only position out there. That doesn't actually prove anything. So let's let's try to get back to what a meaningful argument would look like.

Let's define biblical in the strictest sense to be biblical is to be derived from the necessary Teaching of Scripture by the sound methods of exegesis and interpretation. So for example, it was said the doctrine of the Trinity.

Well, why do we know that is a biblical doctrine because the Bible teaches there is only one true God. There are three divine persons and the equality of those divine persons. And so you have direct consistent exegesis now most Molinists admit that the system is not in fact a necessary result of accurate biblical exegesis.

Instead the argument generally is that Molin ism is consistent with the overall tenor of Scripture while not being derived directly there from I Submit the given Molin isms overarching claims. It cannot be merely consistent with but must be derived from the text and that in its key Elements and the key element was not even attempted to be asserted in what we just heard.

I'll have to get to that in my presentation. What are the key issues? Three fundamental pillars to the proposed system of Molin ism number one the existence of true subjunctive conditionals the so-called counterfactuals of human freedom that delimit and Determine what possible worlds God can actualize?

That's a key assertion. That should have taken ten minutes of the opening presentation, but it didn't. Secondly the denial of the reformed doctrine of effective sovereign grace whereby the Spirit of God Must raise the dead enslaved rebel sinner to spiritual life.

That is regeneration that is taking out the heart of stone and the gracious granting of the heart of flesh. And third the assertion of libertarian free will which we did hear a lot of or Complete human autonomy in reference to the concept that human actions are not only free from the constraint of the divine creative decree But must be free so as to remove any culpability for human evil from God.

That is Molin ism asserts Incompatibility. We certainly did hear that now the heart of the theological claim of Molin ism is its assertion of middle knowledge Logically placed between God's natural knowledge and his free knowledge, which is why it's called middle knowledge.

Middle knowledge is the claim that God knows what every person would do in any given circumstance. So while many might grant such a claim as Stated this is insufficient. The central claim that energizes Molin ism is that this knowledge comes?

Before God decrees to create any person and vitally does not come from God's will His intention or his purpose further God cannot alter or change this knowledge now. This means on the Molinus position the choices of as yet undecreed Uncreated persons are already fixed Separately from any other consideration.

God knows if he makes anyone even though he's not decreed to do so as yet Exactly what they will do but not because of his will or how he creates them. The problems of such a claim are many but in brief.

Where does this knowledge arise from since in Molin ism? This knowledge is the very basis that determines what worlds God can actualize in which he cannot. Humans choices are the result of a myriad of internal and external factors all of which flow from God's decree God's intention God's purpose.

So, how can you know what human actions are going to be before God decrees? To create the human being and put them in the situations that he would put them into. It is on the basis of this concept of middle knowledge that Molin ism asserts that there are possibly certain people Who could never be saved even if God desired to do so and certain worlds God could never create again Even if he wanted to do so.

This is a denial of God's fundamental freedom. No scriptural writer. No prophet nor Apostle ever mentioned. Considered or operated on the basis of such a theory all Subjunctive statements about what people would do such as in the case of David and Kaila and first Samuel 23 Concerned God's knowledge of what he has already decreed and created.

So when you find places in Scripture where you have Subjunctive statements being made that's after God has already created this universe and certainly He knows the hearts of all men that he has created Very very well and knows exactly what they would do.

That's not middle knowledge in any way shape or form the concept of uncreated inalterable true subjunctive conditionals of human actions Separate from and outside the will of God as creator is utterly unbiblical in both the strict and the broader senses and Is in fact an opposition to clear and compelling biblical truth.

Secondly. The reality of regeneration Molin ism posits true knowledge of human beings Separate from not only the conditioning reality of God's divine decree which establishes all the context in which we live but from the biblically mandated need for regeneration.

The granting of spiritual life the freeing from the slavery of sin. The Bible teaches that the unregenerate cannot submit to the law of God. Romans 8 7. Well, this is the delight of the regenerate person so clearly what a regenerate person would do in certain circumstances is different than an unregenerate person yet Regeneration is a divine act Performed by Jesus.

John 8 36 of the Sun will make you free through the Spirit of God. So, how can there be knowledge of what person X will do? If you do not have the issue of regeneration right up front, which is a part of God's decree.

That means it can't be middle knowledge. That's how the Bible functions. Clearly then the regeneration of God's elect people is a part of the decree of God and is in no way limited by nor determined by middle knowledge.

Hence the Bible's teaching on the fallenness of man makes Mullen ISM utterly unbiblical. Likewise the freedom of election directly related this point is the biblical reality that God's decree of election flows not from considerations of possible worlds based upon subjunctive conditionals related to human choices.

But solely from the eudachia the kind intention of his will. Ephesians 1 4 this is the source of God's decree. It is his kind intention his good intention and he is free. He's not simply looking at data provided to him from somebody else from something mythically called middle knowledge.

It's flowing from his own will. God's will determines the elect not middle knowledge. And then we have the assertion as we clearly heard of categorical human freedom. Central to the claims of Mullen ISM is the assertion of categorical human freedom of choice which assumes in its very definition a denial of the prior and Conditioning reality of the divine decree there cannot be a decree that determines the fabric of time.

But the human freedom revealed in Scripture is not categorical but Conditional. What does that mean specifically? The Bible presents God's Exhaustive divine decree as coming freely from his will and man's actions and decisions in time being free in the sense of creaturely freedom.

Man acts and is judged on the basis of his desires not on the basis of possessing categorical freedom or an ability to alter God's will or a Possession of a knowledge of what God's decree is all about in the first place.

None of that is required for the judgment standards that have already been given to mankind. So with that said this is a debate about what is biblical. So I want you to consider with me just four passages of Scripture so that you can think with me Biblically about the claims are being made now.

I realize. Especially if you have not delved deeply into the nature of the claim of middle knowledge. That this can be very difficult to follow. I recognize that but I would encourage you to to stick with us here so that you can Understand what is actually being positively asserted but so far has been given zero evidence in defense of the assertion.

I'd like to think with me about Isaiah chapter 10 now in the olden days when I'd say that I'd hear rustling of pages. Now all I hear is phones being turned on. But in Isaiah chapter 10 you have a situation Where God brings Assyria down against Israel as the rod of his wrath.

But then the scripture tells us this is not what a Syria intends to do. They're not doing this to serve God. Instead they are very arrogant and they think that they are able to come and to do these things and and and they're very prideful and.

So God uses the Assyrians to punish the Israelites in fulfillment of his own word Deuteronomy 28 29. And Then he says when I am finished with my work, I will punish the haughty heart the fruit of the heart of the king of Assyria.

Well, wait a minute. God said he was bringing them down and God said that he was using them even though they did not intend to do what God wanted to do. And then God says I will judge them on what basis.

On the basis that they're knowing what his divine decree was. Of course not it was on the basis of the desires of their heart. That's the foundation of judgment not some form of libertarian freedom. They were being used by God to do what he intended to do and had chosen to do from eternity past but they were judged on the basis of the desires of their hearts and.

They're not just puppets. These aren't these aren't just just this these these neutral Benign beings and God says now think evil thoughts. No, God is normally having to restrain man and his evil thoughts.

God had to keep Joseph's brothers from killing him to accomplish his purpose. God restrains evil. He's not forcing anybody to do evil. That was presented to you. That is a canard. It is a straw man. It is an inaccurate and misrepresentation of the other side but the key thing to remember in Isaiah chapter 10 is The statement that says will the axe boast itself over the one wielding it but you see within Molin ism God doesn't get to create the axe.

He's depend upon middle of knowledge. So as he can know who would function in that way. And so he's got to work through all these different worlds to find a world where he can find an Assyrian king that it's gonna do That for him, but he doesn't have the freedom to define these things.

This is the essence of the error of the concept of middle knowledge. It isn't it isn't interesting that we both cite Ephesians chapter 1 verses 4. I have 4 through 6 here, but 4 through 11. Yes, right there.

God says he works all things after the counsel of his examination of middle knowledge and possible worlds. It's not what it says. Is it? No. It's counsel of his will not man's will. If you have a God who's working through all these possibilities and he's been given this data from middle knowledge.

It does not come from his will. It does not come from his creative desire. It does not come from his eutachia. Then he is doing the best with what he's been given. That's not the God of Ephesians 1. Ephesians 1 tells us that this sovereign God who in eternity past chose a particular people does so out of the counsel of his will.

Do not limit what God can do. Do not say well. Yes, God is sovereign because he's chosen to do these things when what you're fundamentally saying is but he could only actuate certain worlds based upon this middle knowledge and this Decisions of man that cannot be altered but did not come from his will.

Where did it come from? We'll never be told. We'll never be told. Think of John 6 44. What a wonderful text. Heard a debate about it recently. John 6 44 no one Is able to come to me. No one possesses the ability to come to me.

That's bad news. Well, unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day. The only way that Greek can be translated Honestly, is that the one who's drawn by the father is raised up by the son on the last day.

There is no difference between those two terms and you cannot without engaging in a perverse Disruption of the text turn verses 45 and 44 upside down and say oh well. These the people who had already given themselves to the father that the father gives to the son.

Verse 45 is describing what that drawing is the divine action of the revelation to undeserving sinners of Who Jesus Christ is but the point is this? What does it matter if God can have middle knowledge?