Molinism | Apologetics Live 0027

Apologetics Live

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

01:28

All right, there we go, it's better if I unmute myself. All right, I just said praises to Matt Slick and none of you heard it because I was muted, right?

01:38

Okay, maybe that's how it goes. All right, so what I was saying when I was muted, thanks for that,

01:45

Andrew, for letting me know. Good thing I was looking at the chat. So folks, I am going to be minus Mr.

01:52

Slick tonight. Matt Slick will not be here, I gave him the night off.

01:57

For those of you who do not know or are not aware, he is moving, he's in the process of moving to Arizona.

02:04

And in that process, well, that takes a lot of packing and that's what he's doing. The house is probably a mess right now as he's packing everything up.

02:13

He's trying to get everything out. And in that, we're also realizing that if you haven't heard or don't know,

02:23

Matt has basically, his wife has not been doing very well. She's had several surgeries this month alone on her back.

02:32

They don't know if they actually, well, they think they fixed some of the problems that they were looking to fix.

02:38

The problem was they didn't actually relieve all the pain.

02:43

So she's still in pain, but she's doing better, which is good. I will say that tonight, we may have a couple of friends come in.

02:51

They may drop in and we may have a good discussion on the topic of Molinism. So we can look forward to that possibly.

02:59

If you want to ask any questions, wanna join in, you can go to apologeticslive .com.

03:05

There is a link to join there. If you wanna participate, just go there, join in. And what

03:12

I wanted to do until some folks come in is to address an issue. I guess

03:17

I didn't even introduce myself, did I? Wow, okay. So I'm Andrew Rappaport, the, basically

03:24

I work for Striving for Eternity Ministry, and I am the host of Andrew Rappaport's Rapp Report podcast.

03:31

If you have not downloaded that yet and subscribed, what in the world is wrong with you?

03:39

So, excuse me, what I did do recently was dealing with some issues both on Facebook Live on the issue of James chapter two.

03:53

And I also was addressing some other issues on the phrase that we see about pastors being qualified for ministry when it says he must be the husband of one wife.

04:05

And what does that mean? I was going through those things. We got a lot of, well, shall we say grief on that?

04:10

And so I was gonna go over some of that. Well, what I wanted to do is start off until we get some other folks in.

04:19

I wanted to go over James chapter two. And when we look at James chapter two, there is an important thing that we see here.

04:29

And I'm gonna add, let's see, I'm gonna add my buddy Eli here. He's already in here.

04:34

So I'm gonna add him into the show in case he wants to say hi. He's probably just figuring out how

04:40

Google Hangouts works. We got him trying to get used to it last time.

04:45

If you folks who may know, if you are regular listeners, a couple of weeks ago, I had to take a couple of weeks off and I had my friend

04:52

Eli here fill in. And so welcome, Eli. Hello, can you hear me okay?

05:00

I can, Eli likes to show off his degrees there, look. Well, it's either that or this random basketball hoop.

05:09

So that's basically really. Dude, the hoop with the kids having, cause clearly those are the kids like magnets or whatever up there.

05:16

That's weird. Those aren't even mine. Those are my wife's. I'm just kidding. See, mine is like, if you look, let's see, it'd be right there.

05:26

You can't, you can barely see it cause my chair and my big head covers it. All right.

05:32

So I wanna go through until maybe if Eric comes in, but until he does, I wanted to go through James chapter two and look at this.

05:41

And Eli, if you wanna jump in, feel free, we could have a good discussion on this. A lot of people take this verse.

05:48

And by the way, this is not just Roman Catholics, but for those of you who profess to be Christian, okay, if you profess to be a

05:55

Christian and you're making these kinds of arguments, Roman Catholic arguments, think about that.

06:02

Just saying, think about what your argument is. Whose argument are you really making?

06:09

Because this is a big reason there was a thing called a reformation. So if we look at this, we see here that a lot of people focused on James chapter two and verse 18.

06:27

And that says, but some will say you have faith and I have works.

06:34

Show me your faith apart from your works and I will show you my faith by my works.

06:45

And they're gonna argue that this is proof that faith has to have works.

06:52

In fact, what they'll often do is they'll say, well, they'll look at context and verse, look at one verse, just one verse earlier, verse 17.

07:02

So also faith by itself, if it does not have works is dead.

07:08

Now, Roman Catholics love to use verse 17 to argue that this is the only place in the

07:14

Bible that we see faith alone. Yeah, that could be true.

07:21

This may be the only place that the words faith alone may appear. It doesn't mean the concept is not throughout the scriptures, but why would we expect a word or a phrase that wasn't really popularized until 1500 years after Christ?

07:39

Why would we expect that in the first century? I mean, faith alone was an answer to something that Roman Catholics were doing, faith plus works.

07:51

That's where that phrase came up. So you wouldn't expect it to be something that you see in the scriptures because they weren't having that as the issue.

07:59

I mean, you see the concept throughout Galatians, the whole book. But is this actually teaching that we need works to be saved?

08:13

Let me deal with a couple things really quick. And folks, again, if you wanna join in to any discussion, ask any questions, you can go to apologetaxlive .com.

08:24

There's a link to participate there. Click that, join in, and we will open up for any kind of discussions.

08:32

And so with this, here's the first thing. Well, actually, since Eli, you're here, let me just ask you.

08:39

Yeah. What does salvation mean? Oh, well, we're being saved from the just judgment that we deserve due to our sin.

08:49

I was reading through this James chapter two not that long ago. And I noticed also something that people fail to recognize when they're using this as kind of an anti -Protestant perspective is that they do not see that the word justified can also be used in different contexts.

09:09

And so when we say that we believe in justification by faith alone, which is clearly taught by the apostle Paul, especially, for example, in Romans chapter four, verse five, but to the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned to him as righteousness, but to the one who does not work.

09:26

So there's works being left out. The justification that Paul speaks of is not equivalent to the justification that James is speaking.

09:34

Since Paul is using justification in a legal sense, and there is kind of this horizontal aspect, how are we justified before God?

09:42

Whereas in the book of James, what does James say? I will show you my faith by my works.

09:49

Who is he speaking to? Well, he's speaking to other people. And so you have this justification that's on a horizontal. So what you just said, just because the term doesn't, just because the term not justified by faith alone or whatever the wording there is, just because it uses that phrase that seems to support the phraseology that the

10:09

Catholic or the non -reformed person or non -Protestant person wants to use, doesn't mean that that's what it means.

10:15

You need to dig a little deeper and allow the scripture itself to make proper distinctions lest we equivocate when we use words like justification, things like that.

10:24

And so we're gonna get to, because some people will try to argue that this is an example where there's a contradiction between Paul and James.

10:31

I don't think there's any contradiction. But can salvation mean more than just, as you said, the being justified from our sin?

10:41

Does salvation have more of a meaning than just that? Yeah, yeah, salvation can mean many things depending on the context in which we use the word.

10:49

Okay, so salvation as a general term, and this is the big problem that you see, and many people that are in cults, you will see them constantly mix up salvation because salvation, in a general sense, can refer to regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification.

11:11

All these things are not the same event, but they are referred to as salvation.

11:19

So salvation has a general meaning. So there is a point in time where we are declared righteous, where we are sinners to being saints, where there's a point where we are redeemed and justified.

11:35

And when that happens, that's what we would call salvation. And that's true, it is salvation.

11:41

But that's different than the salvation that is the process that starts at that point in time and continues until the day we die.

11:49

That process is what we would call sanctification. That also is referred to as salvation.

12:00

When we die, we get into a glorified state. And when we're in a glorified state, that also is referred to as salvation.

12:10

So we could see salvation past, present, future, for those of us that are believers and alive.

12:16

And so when we look at this, we have to be aware that the term salvation has different meanings.

12:24

So when people say that here, this faith is one that is going to bring about salvation, and they're talking about that process of, or that point in time where we're redeemed or justified, the question is, is that what the context is actually speaking of?

12:43

Is that the kind of faith that's being spoken of here? And what is the point in time?

12:51

So really where you see people that argue that Paul and James contradict one another, it is because people are mixing up their terminology.

13:01

In other words, in this passage, we are looking at sanctification, a process that follows justification.

13:09

When Paul argues for it, as many people will bring out, he's arguing for justification or redemption, that point in time in the past for believers, that point in time that they, what we'd say, got saved.

13:24

It's that moment that they went from being an enemy of God to a child of God. So, Eli, what is the most important thing when it comes to hermeneutics?

13:38

Context, context, context. That's right. So let's look at the context. Here's the thing

13:43

I always find funny. If I speak to anyone that wants to hold to this verse, and they want to try to argue that this verse teaches that you must have works to be saved, they always wanna start in verse 15.

14:02

Why? Well, very simple. Because they don't want the question that's being asked in verse 14.

14:09

Because verse 14 proves that this has nothing to do with the way they're claiming. So remember, their claim is that this passage is dealing with justification.

14:20

This is dealing with someone being redeemed. But let's look at what verse 14 says.

14:28

It says, what good is it, my brothers? Okay, stop right there.

14:35

Eli, if he's referring to his brothers, would he be referring to believers or unbelievers?

14:41

Well, he'd be referring to believers. All right, so right here, he's speaking to people who are already believing, aren't they?

14:49

Right. So that wouldn't be redemption then, because they're already redeemed, aren't they?

14:57

Right. All right, so what good is it, my brothers, if somebody says he has faith, but does not have works?

15:09

That's the question being asked. That's the whole thing here. When we look at this, we have to look at this to see, here, he's asking a hypothetical question.

15:23

He's not giving instruction for how someone is to be saved. He is giving a hypothetical.

15:31

And notice what it is. If someone says he has faith, means he already has it.

15:39

It's not something future. It's not something he's going to obtain. He has that faith. He claims, he's saying he has it.

15:47

Notice here, James is not saying that the person has faith. It's saying that he says he has faith.

15:54

In other words, he claims he has it, but he doesn't have works. The whole answer that we see here, starting in verse 15 and going to the rest of this chapter, is answering this question.

16:10

A person who claims that he has faith already, but does not have works.

16:18

That's the thing he's going to ask. And then he's going to give the answer.

16:25

Now, the question is, can that save faith? Can that save, yeah,

16:31

I can't speak tonight. Can that faith save him? Well, the answer to that is no.

16:37

That faith can't save him because it's not true faith.

16:43

Has nothing to do with works. This is dealing with a false convert. It's someone who thinks he's saved.

16:50

So the fact that everything in verse 14, in the unwritten question, that this is going to answer everything in here is arguing for someone who is already saved.

17:08

Not someone who's looking to get saved, but someone who is saved.

17:15

So right off of verse 14, we see this if.

17:22

Now, Eli, are you familiar with Greek very much? No, I don't have a

17:28

Greek background. I've done a little bit in preliminary, but not enough. But you know enough to know that there's different clauses in the

17:34

Greek, conditional statements, such as. Conditional statements, if then, those hypothetical counterfactual kind of examples.

17:40

Exactly, and what we have here is a, there's different types of clauses in the

17:46

Greek. And sometimes you're going to get a clause where basically what it's going to say is, you know, this is true type of thing.

18:01

And so what you end up seeing is this is a case where this is not saying this is the facts, but it is a hypothetical.

18:17

Now, he's addressing this. I always want to focus on verse 14 for one simple reason.

18:26

If you don't understand the question he's answering, then you're not going to understand the answer properly.

18:36

So for folks who think, and I know there's some Catholics that are watching because you guys always are watching.

18:45

And Eric, don't let me forget about mentioning that, you know, some people were saying that Matt is dodging

18:54

Jerry Maddox and I want to make sure we address that. So don't let me forget that. So when we look at this, he's asking the question to people that are believers.

19:10

And he's talking about someone who says they're a believer, but they don't have works.

19:17

So if that's the case, if they're saying they're a believer, then this can't possibly have anything to do with getting saved or being regenerated because the question itself requires the person to already claim salvation.

19:43

So this is dealing with someone that's already claiming that they're regenerate. Therefore, this is sanctification, not regeneration.

19:53

This is an important distinction. And so before we move on with this, Eli, I don't know if there's anything you want to add to this.

20:01

No, I think you did a great job there. And again, we need to interpret scripture in light of scripture.

20:07

So you don't do your job by just staying in James. Because we believe the entire word of God is inspired, we can't interpret a particular scripture that's in conflict with other clear passages in scripture.

20:20

We want to always interpret ambiguous passages in light of the clear ones.

20:27

Okay. Eric just joined in and didn't know to turn his, no one else heard that, but we heard that because he's not in the show yet.

20:37

But Eric came in and has his, doesn't have headphones on or anything like that.

20:42

So we got a nice echo as he's joining and watching. We'll turn him up in a minute.

20:52

Um, we're going to have to give Eric a hard time just because he deserves it. I got something, I got to look for,

20:57

I got something for Eric when we bring him in. Where is that? Oh, I got to look for this.

21:04

There, no. Ah, there it is. I got just the thing for Eric. Okay. Before we bring him in, folks, so you'll get to hear

21:10

Eric soon. But, so let's continue with this. Um, so right off the bat, when we look at this, this is, has to be explained that this is dealing with sanctification.

21:25

And if you mess this up, if you think it's regeneration when it's sanctification, you're going to be all confused because sanctification comes after regeneration.

21:36

So there's no way, if this is assuming that they are already saved, there's no way that it could refer to them before salvation in how they get saved.

21:48

And that's the whole problem that people have with this verse is they don't read verse 14.

21:55

Okay. He's not saying that works save us. He's not saying that you need works to be regenerated.

22:04

He's saying that if you claim to be a believer in Jesus Christ, you claim to be regenerated, you will have faith that has works because the works are part of the faith when you're truly regenerate.

22:22

That's the whole issue. So if someone says that they have faith, but doesn't have works, and yet he's making the case that the works and the faith go together, then the argument is the faith they have won't save them because it is not a regenerated faith.

22:40

It's a false faith because the faith is based on not in regeneration, but either in their genealogy, their works, their thinking, their good nature, whatever, but it's not based in the work of Jesus Christ.

22:58

That's the whole thing. When we get genuinely saved, we are regenerated, then at that time, we have the works proceeding from that.

23:11

That is what we see in sanctification. So if someone says they have faith, but there's no sanctification process, then we would have to question the faith because the works will always go along with saving faith.

23:29

But the saving faith comes first, and then the works. The way, as Eli said earlier, this is talking about a justification amongst men.

23:40

He's not saying if someone says to God, I have faith, but don't have works.

23:45

No, he's saying if someone says among you, brothers, if someone says to you, so this is horizontal justification, not vertical justification, very different thing.

24:00

And therefore, what we end up seeing is that this is gonna deal with how do you know that I'm regenerate?

24:08

How do I know Eli is regenerate? We all know John Wilkinson is here and he's not regenerate.

24:14

So, wow, there's no response from John. I thought he was definitely gonna unmute and make some comment, but no.

24:21

So he's just giving a thumbs up. He must agree with that statement. But here's the thing.

24:28

You can't tell Eli that I'm saved, can you? I could have indicators that can give me an impression that you may be saved, but I couldn't know for certain.

24:39

Yeah, and I can't know you're saved for certain. But what are we gonna look for? Fruit. Fruit. And that's exactly what this verse says.

24:46

And that's all it's trying to say. If someone says they're regenerate, they're gonna have fruit because that's part of sanctification.

24:56

This really isn't hard. I don't know why so many people struggle with this and think that it's so clearly teaching a work salvation.

25:04

It boggles my mind because it really, I just don't see how this could possibly be teaching that.

25:14

Well, I think it's confusing for Roman Catholics because they come to the table with the presupposition of the equal authority of sacred tradition in the magisterium.

25:25

So you have scripture saying what it says and you have the official interpretation that every

25:31

Catholic is supposed to believe because that's the authoritative way of understanding the scripture from their perspective.

25:38

So they cannot detach their commitment to the magisterium. They can't attach that commitment to this whole entire issue.

25:47

So I don't think it's as simple as, well, the scripture is clear. Well, it may be clear and I agree that it is clear, but there's that other element that they bring to the table that we don't since we hold the sola scriptura.

25:59

But the thing is, is that when I did that Facebook live video this last week, I was getting people who claim to be

26:05

Christian, not Roman Catholic that were arguing. That was what I was finding. You know, and Roman Catholics, by the way, what is it in Roman Catholicism that tells them that the magisterium is authoritative?

26:20

The magisterium, right? I mean, there's no Bible verse that says that. So that's circular logic.

26:29

I think they would probably argue it's implicit in the idea as to how they understand the role of the church and tradition and who carries the tradition and who is being guided by the spirit.

26:44

And so I think they would make an implicit argument that you can draw that out from principles in scripture, which we obviously would disagree with, but they probably argue along those lines.

26:56

Yeah, I think they would try to argue along those lines. All right, so I think it is time.

27:04

Let's see, I'll bring Eric in here. I don't know if he's got, if he's unmuted.

27:12

He was unmuted and now he's got his camera off. So I don't - Let me mess with him here.

27:17

Let's, here, no, here. So let's introduce Eric. Ready? Here's Eric. We gotta get the good music going and I'm ready for Eric.

27:27

I got my lighter here so we could burn him. We were talking online that we're gonna burn the heretics here,

27:34

Eric. You know, I told you I'd look forward to it. That's pretty intense, right? Actually, it looks pretty cool right up to the,

27:41

I'm probably destroying my camera. People that listen to this on the podcast just won't be able to see that flame.

27:49

They'll have to. So Eric, how you doing? Good, can you hear me?

27:54

Is everything coming in all right? Yeah, it is. So folks, this is Eric Hernandez. Eric is a friend that, well, you guys will find out.

28:02

We disagree. But a really smart brother, a great, a great guy.

28:10

Love having seafood with him. He's a heretic, but he's really smart. A heretic can be smart.

28:18

I just want to burn him, that's all. I just. Oh my God, I love when two theological positions try to pay one another compliments.

28:27

I love you in the Lord, but I mean, you're just wrong and I want to burn you.

28:33

See, I don't think Eric is, you know, going to hell.

28:39

Thank you. He could be, but I don't think he is. Hey, let me give it, before we get into this, let me give a quick shout out.

28:48

Someone gave a super chat. For folks who don't know what a super chat is, that's when someone hits the dollar sign and they give some money and we give them a shout out.

28:56

So More Cowbell gave $2 and said, God bless and praise Jesus.

29:02

So thank you for that. And I should, with full disclosure, let you know that all super chats, all the money that's generated from the videos that we have, that will go to CARM.

29:15

That's who receives that. And Striving for Training owns the podcast and we own the show, but just the arrangement that we decided to work with CARM because, well, they can monetize their videos.

29:31

So, and now More Cowbell is saying, no, the purple shirts is destroying the camera.

29:39

I guess it's a good thing that John Wilkinson doesn't say anything because he also is wearing purple. So I guess, you know, we're -

29:48

I was gonna ask you, Andrew, do you know what the reference of More Cowbell comes from? No clue.

29:55

No, no. So you have no idea. See, that's why I laughed when I heard it because I know the reference.

30:00

I guess it's a movie. No, it's from Saturday Night Live with Christopher Walken and you could probably just do a

30:10

YouTube shirt through it. And it's one of the funniest ever skits that they ever did.

30:17

It was so good. It was so funny. Are you implying that I would not know something about Saturday Night Live?

30:24

No, even though you live right across the water where they film it at. So, yeah. Hey, at least

30:30

Saturday Night Live's a TV show. Cut me at least that slack. Well, you wouldn't be missing much if you didn't, if you didn't watch it.

30:37

Yeah, nowadays you don't wanna watch it. People ask me all the time, have you ever seen this particular movie? And I'd be like, no, I love Jesus.

30:43

And then because, you ever see that Family Guy episode? No, because I love the Lord, sorry. Well, see,

30:48

I'm just pop culture illiterate. So I don't get any of it. Let me give a shout out. Soldier for Jesus Christ gave $9 .99.

30:57

So thank you for that. And also Jeffrey Robinson gave $5.

31:05

Aquinas on his commentary on Galatians 3 shows that justify was used differently than Paul.

31:14

And that's exactly what we were saying. So thank you for that, Jeff. So Eric, you and Eli were gonna have a discussion on Molinism, something that Eli's been studying.

31:28

And since I kicked Matt off the show this week, Matt's gonna come back.

31:34

You know, Eli, did you, let me publicly thank you for filling in for me for the two weeks that I could not do it.

31:39

But you let Matt get into discussions on gifts for two weeks.

31:45

I had to come in and spend an hour correcting the record. And Matt actually, I called

31:51

Matt and he had some friends over and one of his friends or our friends, a friend that we both have, was trying to say that Matt won in that discussion.

31:59

I'm like, dude, Matt couldn't stay within the context. He had to, you know, give a meaning for the words from somewhere else in the

32:07

Bible, violating his own rule of interpretation. He had to use logical fallacies in his argument.

32:15

So no, there's no way that I lost. There's just no way. I didn't need to jump all over the Bible to give a new meaning to the text that was there.

32:22

So you really should go back and listen to that, you know, in case you didn't. And that should fully convince you that you were leaning toward Matt's position and it's still wrong.

32:33

So I should get that in since Matt's not here. I am gonna so hear it when Matt gets back.

32:39

We're gonna be going at this again. So Eric, you, excuse me. I know we got together down in Dallas when

32:48

I was out there and we had a long discussion on Molinism, something that you hold to. And so since Eli was trying to study that out,

32:57

I thought, hey, why don't we come in here and just have, you know, all of us have just a discussion.

33:03

So folks, this is not a debate in any way. This is just really, right,

33:08

Eli, you had said, you wanna learn this and you just wanna, you learn best by discussion and by asking questions and you wanted a chance to ask someone who understands it well questions and that's what we wanted to do.

33:20

So this is not a debate, folks. Don't expect debate style, but we wanna learn so that we don't misrepresent people.

33:29

Right, and I want, I would like to say for the record that I am a flaming five point

33:35

Calvinist and I consider Eric Hernandez as a friend. I don't call him,

33:40

I mean, there we go. I don't think he's a heretic, although I disagree with certain points.

33:45

And so one of the things I like to do on my Facebook page, which I have called Calvinism versus Molinism, a respectful dialogue.

33:52

I like to have conversations and have other people have conversations that are more toned down in the name calling and just getting down to the real issues of the arguments and things like that.

34:03

So I think that's super important. Even what we're about to discuss right now, it's like,

34:08

I totally want to learn his perspective because I know

34:14

Molinism is not a monolithic perspective. There is, as Dr. Kirk McGregor pointed out to me, who's a very sharp

34:23

Molinist, very, very sharp guy. He helped me understand that Molinism is very flexible, that there's a minimal that one could affirm to be a

34:31

Molinist, but one could apply it in various ways, perhaps more Calvinistically or on the other end, that you can apply it in a more, within a more

34:40

Arminian flavor. So I know that going through this with Eric is not going to define

34:45

Molinism in its entirety, perhaps his particular brand of Molinism and others who agree with him, that kind of just helps us push forward the conversation and understanding.

34:55

Okay, Eric, before you get into explaining your view of Molinism, did you see what Eli just did?

35:00

He gives me grief for complimenting you in order to - Oh, but I genuinely mean it.

35:07

I mean it, I actually do, I actually do mean it. Well, I actually mean that Eric is smart.

35:13

I actually believe that Eric is smart. Obviously you don't. No, no, I think he's a sharp guy.

35:19

I think we have, our theologies are different because, well,

35:25

I can't say because, because the reason why I think our theologies are different, that's a point of argument.

35:34

I just wanted to point out, and Eric is my witness, that you did the very thing that you said was wrong of mine.

35:42

I just wanted to point that out for the record. Okay, so - Right, no, no, no. Seriously though, I do genuinely appreciate the clarification.

35:50

Just in my own personal studies, my favorite areas to study are creation.

35:57

I love eschatology, which was a gateway drug, so to speak, that got me into apologetics.

36:04

And then the area of soteriology and providence, Calvinism, things like that. So any discussion on Molinism, even though I actually used to be a

36:11

Molinist. I was a Molinist two times in my life, where I flip -flopped back and forth, back in my earlier days.

36:18

So even in Calvinism, I greatly enjoy talking about the topic, because it touches on so many other areas that are important, theologically, philosophically, and things like that.

36:32

So I enjoy these discussions. I was at a conference today, and I met a guy, Ted, who, you talk about end times, he is a full

36:41

Preterist. And I invited him, he right now is catching a flight back home, so he won't be able to join today.

36:49

But maybe sometime he may end up joining in. He's a full Preterist who doesn't believe in hell. So it was an interesting conversation.

36:57

It'd be fun to have him in here. So, Eric, if you could give, I mean,

37:04

Eli was in here a couple weeks ago, so some folks got to hear his background. Could you just quickly give folks an introduction to you, the ministry you're doing, a little bit about yourself, and then get into explaining your views of, when you speak of Molinism, what you mean by it.

37:19

Yeah, and thanks for giving me the opportunity. My name's Eric Hernandez, like you said. I'm currently, recently got hired with Texas Baptist.

37:27

So I am the apologetics lead for the Baptist General Convention of Texas. Background, got into apologetics really deeply because of my atheist philosophy professor, my freshman year, second semester, took another class from, intentionally from another atheist philosophy professor, this time, one who

37:46

I was warned to not take his class because I could lose my faith. So I said, sign me up. From then, just a lot of things that would, a lot of questions he brought up, especially dealing with the soul, that he had objections he would raise that just really pushed me into studying.

38:00

And a few years later, I was invited by the chairman to come back to the college and represent Christianity in a discussion.

38:05

So I always kind of find it funny or ironic that the people who pushed me into apologetics, introduced me to it, introduced me and gave me the first platform to do apologetics were not

38:17

Christians or pastors, it was atheist philosophy professors. And I'll put you on the spot.

38:24

You were working, at least last we met, on a book with a very long title that when

38:31

I asked you the title, you actually had to look up the title of your own book because it was so long.

38:36

So without looking, do you know the title of your book? I don't know.

38:47

I don't know if it's still the one written down, but it's, It's Why I'm Not an Atheist. And the subtitle is an analysis of the, an analysis of the logically inconsistent, philosophically incoherent, unjustified, self -defeating atheistic worldview.

39:02

Because you figure that would be so easy to fit on the spine of the book. It just says to have dot, dot, dot, towards the end.

39:12

I mean, I just wish that you wouldn't explain the whole book in the subtitle. Gets the people going.

39:20

Yeah. Well, hey, it did at the debate we were at back then. So, so could you, could you just define

39:26

Molinism for folks that, at least your understanding of it, for folks who may not be aware of it? I know

39:32

Eli and Matt talked about it a couple of weeks ago on this show, but you being someone that holds the position, it'd be good to get your view.

39:41

Yeah. So Molinism is basically a view of God's omniscience. And basically omniscience would be defined as God knowing every true proposition.

39:50

So if the proposition, Eric likes pizza, that's true or false. God would know whether or not that's true or false.

39:56

Then you have future tense propositions, which would be like, tomorrow, Eric will eat pizza. And that's also true or false.

40:01

So God would know that necessarily. And then you have counterfactual propositions, like if X, then

40:07

Eric will do Y. That's also true or false. That would be a counterfactual knowledge. And where Molinism plays in is that this knowledge comes logically prior before God made a decision to what decision, which world to create, whichever decree, to decree of whatever world he wanted to create.

40:28

So you have God's natural knowledge, which is knowledge of all things that would include necessary truths.

40:33

So in other words, to try and be brief in a nutshell, so we can get to the conversation,

40:40

God's decision to create this world was his free choice. And within those choices, he knew every possibility that could occur.

40:48

And then if he created creatures with free will, libertarian free will, then he knew what actions they would take in any given circumstance.

40:54

And among these, he freely chose which world to create. So the natural knowledge is a knowledge that God has of anything possible.

41:04

The foreknowledge would be the knowledge of the world that he chose to create. And then the middle knowledge, which would come between those two, would be the knowledge that God had of any other worlds that he could have created, but refrained from doing so.

41:18

You caught all that? Well, I mean, but I've been talking with Eric and others about this for a while.

41:28

So let me give an example. We'll often sometimes talk about middle knowledge. That comes up, right?

41:35

And I think this is where, I think some people have some different definitions of middle knowledge or at least the understanding in the way it works out.

41:45

An example that I would argue from scripture would be that we see Christ when he says, if the works that were done before you were done in Sodom and Gomorrah, then this is what would happen.

42:00

He says, they would repent in sackcloth and ashes. In other words, Jesus actually claims he knows what could have happened.

42:09

If he did those same works with Sodom and Gomorrah, he claims they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes.

42:16

This is what some people would call a middle knowledge, a knowledge of, so we would speak of God being omniscient that he knows all things past, present, future.

42:28

And I would say real and possible. I would say that God knows the possible, but when

42:36

Eric, when you really refer to that middle knowledge, I think where we will have the differences in middle knowledge.

42:44

And Eli, if you want to jump in with questions too, that'd be fine too. But I'll just add something quickly.

42:51

I don't think that Molinus would use that as an explicit reference to middle knowledge.

42:59

That would be a reference to counterfactual knowledge. And we don't want to conflate

43:05

God's middle knowledge with just counterfactual knowledge. Because the Calvinist, along with the

43:10

Molinus, agrees that God has counterfactual knowledge. Yeah, and this is where we, because we get into the terms that we have, because I'm going to hold to the fact that God knows the real and the possible.

43:24

I think where Eric and I are going to disagree, and Eric will correct me if I say this wrong anyway, where we're going to disagree is,

43:32

I don't believe that God looked at all of the choices, all these possible choices that men would make, and know all those counterfactuals, and then based on that, make a decision, okay?

43:51

My view of God's omniscience is going to be different because I think God just knows everything.

43:56

Not based on anything outside of himself. So it's not based on anything we would do.

44:03

Yeah, so I don't think God looked at anything either. If I said that I was more anthropomorphic or figurative,

44:09

God knows all things necessarily by his very nature. So God didn't have to look at anything to know anything.

44:15

I agree with you that his knowledge isn't based on anything external to him. So nevertheless, that's not to say that God didn't make a decision based on the knowledge he has.

44:24

I don't know of any decision God would make that would not be based on something intrinsic to him, namely his knowledge.

44:30

So if God has middle knowledge, and I like the distinction Eli pointed out, it's not just counterfactual, it's middle because it comes logically prior to his decree to create this actual world, then

44:41

I wouldn't see anything wrong with saying that God made a decision to create based on the knowledge that he had, and that would include middle knowledge.

44:48

And I think an important point too, because it gets into these philosophical distinctions, for those who disagree that God has middle knowledge, because there's obviously people who disagree that God has that sort of knowledge.

45:00

And I like what Eric did. He does what some Molinists don't. The bare minimum of Molinism for many people is that God has middle knowledge and that there's libertarian freedom.

45:13

Whereas Eric actually, I think, narrowed down his definition of Molinism as a view of God's omniscience, right?

45:22

So God could have middle knowledge even though he never creates libertarian free creatures.

45:30

Would I be correct in understanding that? Yeah, absolutely. And like you said earlier, the caveat you gave that some people might disagree with that, but yeah, right.

45:38

So if we were to talk of necessary and sufficient conditions that would definitely be a necessary condition,

45:44

God having that middle knowledge and then creating a world based on that knowledge. The libertarian freedom,

45:51

I would argue, it's not necessary for there to exist libertarian freedom for Molinism to be true, but it would at least encompass that God would know what a world of libertarian creatures would be like or look like if he had created them.

46:05

So let's say someone wants to be a Calvinist and a Molinist. All they would have to do is say that God indeed knew what kind of a world, what the world would be like had he created libertarian free creatures, but then decided that's not a world he wanted.

46:18

So created a world in which compatibilism was true. So you would still have Molinism and Calvinism being true in the same, in the actual world.

46:26

Right. I think a question that I would ask, and I think some people wonder when they reflect upon this, is that when you say that God has counterfactual knowledge logically prior to the divine decree, how would one know that God's counterfactual knowledge is logically prior to the decree?

46:45

It seems that that would be a necessary aspect of holding to middle knowledge. And I think it would be connected also to the reality of libertarian freedom since if God's counterfactual knowledge is located logically posterior to the divine decree, then you have a form of determinism because God determines the counterfactuals.

47:05

Whereas if it's located logically prior, God doesn't determine the counterfactual, they're true independent of God's willing them to be true.

47:13

Would I be correct in understanding that? Well, if you're talking about free will, free will - I put free will into the mix there.

47:19

So you're right. Without free will creatures, he would still have middle knowledge. I guess my question is, how would we know, how could we know what's essential for middle knowledge, namely that God has counterfactual knowledge logically prior to the divine decree?

47:34

Well, if there was no free will, then it would still be a middle knowledge of what he would do and what would work out in the things that he did.

47:42

So God could have middle knowledge of his own actions? Yeah, I'd say so. That's interesting.

47:48

I've heard, I think I've heard Dr. Craig say something to a different effect, but that's fine. I'd have to look into that a little more.

47:54

Interesting, okay. Yeah, and maybe I'm misunderstanding the question. What would be the pushback or reason why he wouldn't?

48:01

I'm not sure. That's why I asked the question. I wasn't trying to like, you know, like trap you or anything.

48:06

Oh, no, no, no. If it was coming from Andrew, I think it was a trap, but if it's coming from you, I understand. Wow. No, I'm not trying to trap you.

48:15

But, you know, there's something important to pick up because you guys are talking about the libertarian free will and this is important because a lot of people seem, not saying they do, but a lot of people seem to go to Molinism because of a belief in libertarian free will almost to a fault, you know, they have to give an answer, you know, excuse me.

48:43

I think you have some people that will actually look at it because they want to give an answer against Calvinism.

48:49

They want to give an answer for libertarian free will and some, and I'll let

48:55

Eric say if he agrees or disagrees with, you know, as I've heard some Molinists try to argue is that, you know,

49:02

God, they're trying to answer for free will. And so they'll say that God created a world that gave him the most glory based on the free will or libertarian free will of people that was looking at all of the choices that humans were going to make, looking at all of them and then choosing the world that would give them the most glory.

49:28

Now, I don't know, Eric, well, actually I kind of know where you are on this, but I'll let you answer it because I don't think the audience would know.

49:35

What would be your position with that? I would say, I wouldn't know the exact thing, but we can speculate, obviously.

49:42

And I think that's a good place to start. What would give him the most glory, maybe some kind of a ratio between saved and unsaved.

49:48

But if we're dealing with libertarianly free creatures, it would be then if another, if we grant that, then it would be

49:55

God's decision to do this and to choose among the worlds in which there were libertarian creatures and then whatever he saw fit, whether it be that ratio or what gave him the most glory or maybe those two go hand in hand,

50:09

I would say he made the free decision to create this world. And if he's a all perfect, all good being, he might trust his judgment.

50:21

I guess my question would be going back to the other point that I made before is that how do we know, how can one know that God has counterfactual knowledge logically prior as opposed to logically posterior?

50:35

Since for him to have it logically prior is what's necessary for Molinism to be true.

50:41

Or is it a philosophical speculation that you think it has good warrant to posit?

50:47

We have good justification for positing that that is the case because of maybe principles in scripture.

50:53

Because I think what Andrew said before is some people tend to lean towards Molinism because it answers a theological and philosophical question as opposed to deriving

51:09

Molinism exegetically. Now you might agree, disagree, but some people are geared toward moving to Molinism for those reasons.

51:20

And so that's why I asked this idea that God has counterfactual knowledge logically prior to the divine decree.

51:26

Is that something you can derive from implications in scripture? Or is this a philosophical speculation that if true actually helps you make sense out of some of these other scriptures you think need to be reconciled?

51:40

Well, a few things I'd first say. So when we're talking about the order, we're talking about logical priority.

51:50

And I guess to clarify this, it would become middle knowledge once God decides which world to create, then what's left over would be the middle knowledge.

51:59

Become middle knowledge? So middle knowledge is not essential to God's being unless he creates?

52:06

Well, in other words, there's no foreknowledge until God makes that decision to create.

52:13

Would you agree with that? And we're not talking in time, we're not talking about temporally, we're talking about just in logical priority.

52:21

Okay, so repeat the question again so I don't incorrectly answer. That there's no foreknowledge until God actualizes it.

52:30

When you say until, it automatically puts it in a temporal order for me so I wanna be careful.

52:36

I think foreknowledge is essential to the nature of God.

52:42

From all of eternity, he foreknew what he would do and what he would create and who he would create and what they would do.

52:50

Right. And given that, so let's go with that and I would agree there.

52:56

He always knew that, but of course there was that decision and it wasn't in time.

53:02

So that's why we talk about logical priority. Logically prior to this decision, not temporally, he knew all things.

53:09

And then logically, then once he decides which world to create, then you have that counterfactual knowledge because it's counter to fact, counter to what will be.

53:18

Right. So that would be the middle knowledge. And that's what he's -

53:23

Well, wouldn't that be his, in other words, the counterfactual knowledge is what it is because God decreed a particular world in which those counterfactuals are what they are.

53:37

Right? I don't know if I'd say because he decreed that world. By counterfactuals, do you mean the middle knowledge of the things that did not happen?

53:45

Well, you have natural knowledge, middle knowledge, the decree, and then free knowledge.

53:52

Right? Natural knowledge. Middle knowledge, the decree, and free knowledge.

53:58

Right? I would add that free knowledge. Well, yeah. No, yeah. The free knowledge, but yeah.

54:04

Right? So there's the three moments and in between the last two, there's the decree. Right? There's three. And then maybe

54:10

I'm mixing this up here. Sorry, it's been a long day for me. No, it's okay, man.

54:16

Well, I'll say natural, middle, and foreknowledge. And that foreknowledge, if I'm not - Are you saying foreknowledge or free knowledge, which is the normal -

54:24

Foreknowledge. Well, I would say free knowledge because it's the knowledge of what God freely chose to create.

54:30

Okay, because my influence in Molinism has come primarily from Kenneth Heathley.

54:36

So I kind of think in terms of his could, would, and will. So natural knowledge is

54:42

God's knowledge of everything that could happen. Middle knowledge, everything that would happen. And free knowledge, which comes after the decree, is everything that will in fact happen since God decreed.

54:53

Right? Would you agree with that? I agree with that, yeah. Okay, all right. And so you have these three knowledge.

55:01

You have natural knowledge, middle knowledge, and free knowledge. And right here is the decree.

55:08

Now the middle knowledge includes counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, correct? Yes. Okay.

55:15

So how does he know what those counterfactuals are independent of a decree?

55:22

That's my question. Well, yeah, I don't think it's independent of it. I wouldn't say it's independent. I would say it's just, and what

55:30

I was getting to earlier, just like foreknowledge is not independent of what he decrees, because obviously it's based on what he decrees.

55:37

Sure. Free knowledge or foreknowledge, call it what you want. It's dependent on his decree. So I wouldn't say it's independent. So would you say that God foreknows things because he foreknows his decrees?

55:47

He knows, in other words, he foreknows something because he's decreed or the other way around.

55:54

How would you understand that? That God, that it cannot be foreknowledge until it's decreed.

56:02

But it can be middle knowledge before it's decreed. I don't think it could be. If it's dependent on the decree, then if middle knowledge and foreknowledge is dependent on the decree,

56:10

I'd say it's, I don't think it's independent. Then I'm confused because I always thought that middle knowledge comes logically prior to the divine decree.

56:19

And so there are not, there's knowledge that God has of what, we'll use libertarian, let's assume he created libertarianly free creatures.

56:26

There's knowledge of what a libertarianly free creature would do in a certain circumstance. And God's knowledge of that comes logically prior to the divine decree.

56:36

And so once he decrees, it sets really, it sets in stone, so to speak, the certainty of those counterfactual actions.

56:43

So I guess this relates to what's commonly brought up, and maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole issue of the grounding objection, which again,

56:51

I mean, many Molinists say they've responded to, and maybe I'm not making a right connection. But what I'm asking,

56:57

I guess, is if God has this knowledge of counter, the counterfactual knowledge of creaturely decisions, libertarianly free decisions, prior to the decree, how can these things be, what a creature would do without a decree, since God has this knowledge before he makes the decree?

57:18

Does that make sense? I think so. And let me come back on that. You tell me, you can get on the same page.

57:25

So remember, middle knowledge is middle knowledge relevant to what? Counterfactual knowledge is relevant to what is counter to fact.

57:30

So there has to be a fact before there's a counter to it. So I would say it'd be dependent on what God decreed. So there were no facts of creatures before the decree.

57:45

No, I would say there is. Okay, so then I don't understand what you're saying. And maybe if I could ask

57:51

Andrew real quick, are you following Andrew? Do you see where I'm having a difficulty? Yeah, and I, well,

57:58

I have a bunch of questions that are coming up, and actually, I know John had one that I think is gonna be good too.

58:03

So I think part of the issue here is definition of terms.

58:11

And just not, we have to be careful not to read into it what we think someone's saying with some of this because there's a lot here.

58:24

And I think you and Matt said this, what, three or four weeks ago when you were on, that this is something that is very philosophical, and it takes some understanding.

58:37

And if I'll put this out there for anyone listening, if you take a knee -jerk reaction to Molinism and don't take the time to understand what people are saying about it, you're making a mistake.

58:49

Okay, it takes some time to understand this. But I do wanna,

58:55

I wanna ask if I could, the question John had, or John, I don't know if you wanna unmute yourself and ask it.

59:04

But - Go ahead, I'm eating. Okay. John had said this, can

59:10

God foreordain slash predestine a person's choices, and are they still free?

59:20

And I think, because I think what he's getting there is a question I was gonna ask is like, based on what you were saying,

59:28

Eli, it almost sounds like, and I'm saying almost because I want

59:34

Eric to correct this, but it sounds like once God chooses which world he's gonna create, it is, it's determined.

59:45

Like we can't do anything against that. So are we really free then?

59:54

Yes, because by determined, I would, so it sounds like in order for what you're saying to be true, you'd have to say causally determined.

01:00:00

So if we replace the word determined with choice, if God chose to create a world, and we can say determined as long as we're not talking about causal determination, yes, there could still be free will.

01:00:12

But can't, okay, so God chooses a world. Once he chooses it, can

01:00:18

I do anything other than what I'm going to do in that world?

01:00:26

I mean, do I, am I really free to make any other choice in the world that he chose?

01:00:32

Well, two things. First, yes, of course. Second, I reject what you're talking, what's either called dual ability or principle of alternative possibilities.

01:00:41

I reject that as a necessary condition for libertarian freedom, but yes, you could do other than what

01:00:46

God knew you could do. Now note, there's a difference between you could do versus you will do. Okay, first of all -

01:00:53

That's where the acorns come in, right? Right. Okay, but what I want you to do,

01:00:58

Eric, and this is the thing, folks, that I always have to do with Eric when he's on the show, because not everyone follows these things and studies philosophy like he does.

01:01:06

I want you to define the terms you just used so that folks understand the differences and what you're saying you disagree with.

01:01:13

Yes, of course. So like Eli was talking about, bringing up the acorns, it's those godly acorns that he likes to talk about.

01:01:21

So let's, because what we're essentially asking about is, like you were saying, could

01:01:27

I do counter to what God knows? But this is a question of a thing's capacity.

01:01:32

So for example, excuse me, within the nature of an acorn, it has a capacity to, if planted in the ground, grow a root system and become an oak tree.

01:01:43

But suppose God decrees that this acorn is going to sit on my desk and never be planted in the ground.

01:01:49

And he knows that this acorn will never be planted and never become an oak tree. Does it follow from that, that therefore that acorn loses a capacity to, if planted in the ground, become an oak tree?

01:01:59

Well, no, of course, that capacity remains even if it's never actualized. So if the question is, could

01:02:05

I do something, if God knows I'll do X, could I do something other than X? Well, yes, I could, but it doesn't follow from the fact that I could, that I have the capacity to do so, that I will do so.

01:02:15

So there's nothing wrong with saying, God knows that I will do X and simultaneously knows that I could also do not

01:02:23

X, or I could do Y. Is that answer not available to the

01:02:28

Calvinist who believes that God decrees in the way that us Calvinists typically understand that?

01:02:34

Since on Calvinism, if you read, say, for example, someone like A .W. Pink, he uses the example of the bones of Jesus.

01:02:41

Yeah, it could be broken, but given the decree of God that they won't be broken, they're not.

01:02:49

But it seems like the answer you're giving to, I guess you're not trying to reconcile, but you're trying to explain how, if God foreordained something, you're still free to do something.

01:03:00

And that is kind of something that fits within your perspective. Everything you said, unless I'm being inconsistent,

01:03:06

I would say something to that effect as a Calvinist. Is that something unique to your view that I can't have as a

01:03:12

Calvinist? Well, it would depend who's the first mover of your will on your perspective.

01:03:18

As I understand Calvinism, God, you're a secondary, especially, in other words, if compatibilism is true,

01:03:25

I don't know how familiar your audience is with libertarian freedom and compatibilism, but if compatibilism is true, then you're just caused to do something by external factors beyond your control.

01:03:34

On my view of libertarian freedom, you are the first mover. You are the originator and source of your will and action.

01:03:44

So it starts with me. On compatibilism, you're caused to act by something external to yourself. So if you're caused to act something external to yourself, then you could try and use that example, but either way you try to reconcile that, you're still not the first mover.

01:04:02

And I would argue, if you're not the first mover, then you don't have libertarian freedom. What do you mean that we believe that we are caused to do the action?

01:04:12

We, as in Calvinism, Calvinist? Like when you said, you know, if God, you know,

01:04:17

God causes us to do what we do, what do you, how do you understand what we believe about what that means?

01:04:26

Well, if assuming that the Calvinist is a compatibilist, on compatibilism, it's just determinism.

01:04:33

Did you want to jump in? Well, I mean, again, I'm just trying to understand when someone's, for example,

01:04:40

I'm asking the question because if God didn't create you, then you wouldn't do anything.

01:04:48

You wouldn't make a choice. But if God creates you, we could say in a sense, what you do,

01:04:54

God foreknows you will do. You could hypothetically, you have the capacity to do something, but that capacity will never be actualized because God's foreknowledge can't be falsified.

01:05:04

So in a sense, we can say, well, because God created you and he knew what you would do, and that makes certain what you will do, then in a sense,

01:05:13

God causes you to do it. Now that's, I asked the question of how you understand cause since cause can have different meanings.

01:05:22

There, I mean, there are different ways in which something can cause another thing. So that's why I was asking the question.

01:05:29

Well, there's a difference between God being the cause of my existence versus God being the cause of my will or actions.

01:05:35

So I would agree with you that God is the reason for which I exist, but he is not the mover of my will.

01:05:40

Otherwise I don't have a genuine freedom. What I would say is genuine freedom. And just because God would create me, it doesn't make certain any particular action.

01:05:50

There has to be a number of other things that would come into play in order for a particular action to be certain.

01:05:55

So in other words, if God wanted, if God wanted to, if God created a world in which, let's say

01:06:02

I hit my sister when I'm five. I love, just real quick.

01:06:07

I just love when the analogies, and we've talked about this before, when we bring up analogies, philosophers always use the worst case scenario.

01:06:15

Go ahead, I'm sorry. No, it's funny because we were talking about this the other day and I was outside my house sitting on the porch and I was saying something about a scenario about rape.

01:06:23

And I just realized I was outside with people walking. I'm like, I better talk about this inside the house. So let's say there's a world in which

01:06:32

I hit my little sister when I'm five. Well, in virtue of God creating me, it doesn't make it certain because he could create me and then refrain from creating my sister.

01:06:41

So it'd be impossible for me to hit a sister that doesn't exist. So it's not just in virtue of him creating me that these actions become certain.

01:06:48

So there, and I would just add onto that, reiterate the distinction I made, the difference between God being the cause of my existence versus the cause of my will.

01:06:57

Well, okay, so fair enough. So if God creates you, he doesn't have to create your sister. But I guess I'm assuming that when

01:07:02

God creates you, I'm also presupposing the whole nexus of reality.

01:07:08

So you in this world in which people who exist, exist. So you don't exist independently of anything else.

01:07:15

God creates you, he creates you when he does to be placed in the point of history that you're placed in the family that you're placed with the sister that you have, with the temperament that she has, all of the influences that go into shaping and forming those things.

01:07:29

So it seems to be that with all of those things considered, the particular act to hit your sister is certain since with all of those things set in place,

01:07:40

God foreknows you will do it and can't be wrong about that. So it seems to me that you could do otherwise, hypothetically, but you will not because God already foreknows what you will do.

01:07:54

And so I don't know how that - A few things, because that's the whole point of Molinism is the possible worlds.

01:08:02

And by that, it's simply a figurative way of speaking. We don't mean for the listeners, we don't mean like a multiverse.

01:08:09

We mean the range of possibilities. The moment you change anything in the world that you're talking about, it then becomes a separate possible world.

01:08:16

So let's say in this very same world, in the world, in the actual world, this world that we're in, let's suppose

01:08:22

God gave me three more hairs. Well, then it's no longer this world. It's a hypothetical, it's another possible world.

01:08:28

So God, so when you say, when you assume my existence, you assume all these other things.

01:08:34

Well, that's to, with all due respect, then you're not kind of understanding the semantics of possible worlds because you would have to say, sure, in this actual world, that would be a certain action

01:08:44

I would take. That's not to say it would be a certain action in another possible world where I had another sister or no sister. So now,

01:08:51

I don't know how deep you want to go here, but with my view on the soul and the existence of the soul and the traducian view where I could not exist if I had a different set of parents, then sure,

01:09:01

I would grant that in order for me to exist, you would have to have the lineage that I had. But that's only one factor in a myriad of factors that come into play, such as the one

01:09:11

I mentioned earlier, I can't hit a sister I don't have. Yeah, I guess just basically, it was kind of the question that Andrew asked.

01:09:18

I don't see how you can be free to do other than what God foreknows you will do.

01:09:25

That's what you asked originally. And we went kind of a little deep into that. But just back, I mean, all that said, that's helpful.

01:09:33

But just back up, how can someone, is it merely just he has the capacity?

01:09:40

Well, fine, we can say he has the capacity, but he won't actually actualize that capacity because God foreknows how that person's capacity will be played out.

01:09:50

So how can he be free to do other than what he in fact does, if God foreknows? Well, I don't see how

01:09:57

God foreknown removes the ability to do otherwise. Well, I guess, are you understanding the ability to do otherwise as a hypothetical ability, right?

01:10:08

Sure, I mean, it's within my capacity to do otherwise. Okay, but because God foreknows, we will never do what we have in our capacity to do other than the specific thing that we choose, right?

01:10:19

Say that again. I was like, when I said that, I was hoping you would ask not to say it again because I was like,

01:10:26

I'm gonna have difficulty formulating that. Andrew, do you understand the kind of question

01:10:32

I'm asking? Maybe you can clarify for me because I'm having difficulty formulating my words. I think I do.

01:10:37

And I just wanna also say that I brought in both Chris and Tyler Villa joined in.

01:10:43

So I know that they enjoyed discussing this as well. So - I'm gonna get jumped is what you're saying. Huh?

01:10:49

So I'm gonna get jumped is what you're saying. I put my flame away.

01:10:56

Oh no, I can't burn you. No, you have the capacity to burn him, but if God doesn't -

01:11:01

Yeah, I think the area where we kind of struggle is,

01:11:08

I'm gonna, this may not be the best way to word it, but how free is free in a

01:11:14

Molinist worldview? I mean, if that makes sense, and I sort of think that's where Eli's trying to get is, you know, if once God selects a world, we really can't choose anything but that in that world he selects.

01:11:35

Because - Well, because you had said, if you have three more hairs, then it's a different world than the one where you have three less hairs.

01:11:44

So when God chooses the world where you have three less hairs, you can't have three more hairs because that would be a different world.

01:11:53

This world can only do that which it was selected to do, which then, and this is my view,

01:12:03

I kind of, I think that Molinism is more determinist than Calvinism would be, because once God chooses that world, you can't do anything but what he chose.

01:12:18

Okay, well, now I'm gonna have to burn you at the stake at that statement there. And this is nothing

01:12:24

I haven't said to you in person for folks who are listening. Well, no, because if there's libertarian freedom, then if by determinism you mean causally determined, then there is no deterministic sense in this world.

01:12:40

Just because it would be a different world doesn't mean there's any, has to do nothing with our freedom.

01:12:47

There's nothing changing within our capacities as a human beings. If it's within our nature to have libertarian freedom, then adding three more hairs or three less hairs on my head doesn't do anything to my capacities.

01:12:59

Okay, so let's, if in another world where I did not choose

01:13:08

God, right, that would be a different world than the world where I chose

01:13:14

God and was saved, correct? Yes. Okay, so if in that world where I chose

01:13:22

God and I'm using, and folks, I'm just using the language that for Molinism, I'm not,

01:13:28

I wouldn't argue that I chose God, but in the world where I chose

01:13:34

God, can I do anything but to choose God?

01:13:41

Yes. Yes. It would be another world. When you say yes, Eric, what you're referring to is that you could in the sense that you have the capacity to, kind of like an acorn having the capacity to grow into a tree if it were placed in soil.

01:14:01

Right. Right, and I think Andrew would agree with that. As a Calvinist, you would.

01:14:07

So I'm having difficulty distinguishing why you're able to say that and that helps your position, but as a

01:14:12

Calvinist, he can't say that and it doesn't help his position. Do you understand where I'm coming from, Andrew? Yeah.

01:14:19

Yeah. Because, I mean, if it's a completely different world once I don't choose

01:14:27

God, I'm in a different world, but God selected the world where I chose him,

01:14:38

I'm incapable of not choosing him because that's what happens in this world.

01:14:44

And if I have the capacity not to choose him, that's a different world. Well, no, because then you'd have to say that your capacities are dependent on what you will do and everything you don't do, you automatically lose those capacities in that different world.

01:14:58

Yeah, correct, correct. So in other words, I cannot do anything but choose, if it's the world that God selects where I choose

01:15:11

God, then I must choose God. I can't do anything but that because if I do anything but that, it would be a different world.

01:15:19

Well, you gotta be careful with the word can. I was just reading John Frame's systematic theology a couple of days ago, and he warns

01:15:26

Calvinists from using the language of total inability within the context of soteriology because he points out,

01:15:37

I think what Eric is pointing out, that the unbeliever has the capacity, he has the capacity, there's nothing lacking within his mental faculties that he could make a choice if he desired, right?

01:15:51

He could, he is able in that sense, but he doesn't have the will to do it because of other factors.

01:15:59

So again, coming from John Frame, who's a Calvinist, I think he would agree with what

01:16:06

Eric is saying here, and that's where my difficulty is. Why is this something that helps your perspective in which you're using this to explain, well, he could do this, and it doesn't fit within the

01:16:19

Calvinist perspective, unless you think it equally fits in both perspectives. It seems like John Frame thinks so, if I'm understanding him correctly.

01:16:26

Well, you could say that on a Calvinist perspective, but you'd have to explain it differently because on my perspective, I'm the first mover.

01:16:33

As I understand compatibilism, God is the first mover and uses secondary means to cause your will and actions.

01:16:41

Yes, but you, so, okay, and this is, we're getting into really the libertarian free will, but you were saying that's not actually part of Molinism and tied to it.

01:16:53

It's not necessary to have Molinism. Not necessary. Right, yeah. So you're saying that your view, and I just wanna make sure

01:17:00

I'm clear on this, you're saying your view, you would be the necessary first mover. I would say in order for libertarian freedom to exist, you have to be necessarily the first mover, yes.

01:17:12

Okay. Not that being the first mover has to exist necessarily, but if there is libertarian freedom, if that's supposed to exist, then necessarily you have to be the first mover.

01:17:20

Okay. Now, and I, cause I'm gonna go back to this cause I just wanna really,

01:17:26

I wanna see that we get a good understanding on this. In the world that God selects where I become a

01:17:37

Christian, right, I convert from Judaism to Christianity. If he selects that world, will

01:17:45

I do anything but that? No, not if that's what you'll do, because it's almost a tautology here.

01:17:56

If I will do X tomorrow, then will I not do X? Well, no, because then you can't say that you will do X tomorrow if you're not gonna do

01:18:03

X. Okay, so I think we understand that. So I will do that.

01:18:08

I will repent. Is it God who is selecting that world?

01:18:14

Yes. Okay. So once God makes that selection, I, there, this will happen, correct?

01:18:24

Yes. That would be God, in my view, that is determinism. Once God's -

01:18:30

It can't fail to happen. Sure. Yeah. Exactly, right. Well, hold on, not that it can't fail, it's that it will not fail to happen.

01:18:38

It will not fail to, it will not fail to happen. Yeah. Right, it will not fail to happen. Right, go ahead, Andrew, I'm sorry.

01:18:44

This is why I say that I think that it's more deterministic than hyper -Calvinism, because once God selects that world, we can't but do what is determined for that world, right?

01:19:04

Right, and I would disagree, because it's like saying whatever I did yesterday, I could not have done otherwise. Well, no, I could have done otherwise, just that I didn't.

01:19:10

There's nothing deterministic about knowing that I can't change the past. There is something deterministic in this one, because God is looking at all these possible worlds and selecting one, and once He selects one, that is what we will do.

01:19:28

Now, He could have chosen something else, so really, He had the will to choose one world over the other, but once He chooses that world, we can't do but what was determined for that world.

01:19:42

So I will do what I will do in the world that God selected, and that selecting of that world is done independent of what

01:19:55

I do. So what I do is not dependent ultimately on what I choose to do, but it's ultimately done because of the world that God chose to actualize.

01:20:06

Sorry, you can clarify, go ahead. Well, I was gonna say, I wouldn't word it that way, because what

01:20:13

I do, God knows I will do, and He is free to use my free decisions of what

01:20:18

I will do. So as long as you have a libertarian freedom, there's nothing deterministic at all about it. It's God using our free choices, not causing our choices.

01:20:26

But He knows what you will do, Eric. Right, but knowledge is not causal. He will choose the world, namely, where you will do precisely what you do, right?

01:20:34

Because let's say it this way, God knows what I will do freely. Then the whole objection,

01:20:39

I would say, falls apart. If God knows what I would do freely, then you can't call it causally determinative.

01:20:47

And just for the record, and for the fun of giving jabs at Eric, Eric doesn't want to word it that way because it would sound wrong.

01:20:59

But I'm gonna be challengeable because... We know each other pretty well.

01:21:06

What I appreciate about Eric is I think he understands making distinctions.

01:21:13

But in that last part, it seemed as though you weren't being as consistent, but that's just me, obviously.

01:21:20

That's okay. And I'm just making that up. I appreciate that. And it's kind of funny because I was thinking the same thing about you guys.

01:21:27

Of course. In other words, why is it... Because essentially, you're gonna have to argue that God's knowledge is determinative just because He knows something, therefore it's causally determinative.

01:21:39

But knowledge, which is a mental state, does not cause any knowledge of what my wife will do tomorrow or my knowledge that the sun will rise is not causing any of the...

01:21:51

I'm not... I don't think that was the assumption we were making, although that's a common misconception. If God foreknows what you will do, if God knows that I will mow the lawn tomorrow, can

01:22:05

I choose not to mow the lawn tomorrow? And the arguments usually put forth that because God foreknows it, it will necessarily happen.

01:22:12

And that doesn't logically follow because it commits a modal fallacy. We have to make a distinction between necessity and certainty.

01:22:17

So that wasn't the assumption that I was thinking about. I think I was on track with what Andrew was trying to say.

01:22:23

It's just the certainty of what I will do is based upon not what

01:22:29

I will do, but based upon the world God chooses. Right, but the world that God chooses is...

01:22:36

The counterfactuals is based on what I will do. In other words, if God created a world in which I had two sisters, then

01:22:42

I would hit two sisters, not five. But if it's only one... You wouldn't have to ruin any of those worlds.

01:22:49

So in other words, just because God knows what I'll do doesn't make it determinative because it's still based on my freedom to choose to do that.

01:22:59

So as long as there's nothing external to myself that is causing my will or actions, and I'm still free and I could do otherwise, it's that I've chosen not to.

01:23:08

Okay, so - One question. Go ahead, Andrew, I'm sorry. Let me just say this, then I'll let

01:23:13

Chris ask a question. I guess my thing with this, Eric, is...

01:23:19

And I'm trying to break it down really simple, right? God is the one that selects or determines or chooses the world.

01:23:30

And once he does that, once he selects that world, that world will happen.

01:23:37

And that's... So that's... I mean, just at a simple level, this is why it's once God selects...

01:23:45

So God is the one actually doing that selecting and then really forcing that to happen.

01:23:53

If he selects one and then that is what will happen in that world, then that -

01:24:00

That's a strong language there, Andrew. I think you're gonna... A libertarian person who believes in libertarianism will break out in hives when you use the word forcing.

01:24:11

Right, because that changes the entire thing. That one word changes the entire situation. No, it isn't, because we don't have the ability, once God selects a world, we cannot do anything but what we do in that world.

01:24:27

Right, and that's the entire disagreement here. You could, but that has nothing to do with -

01:24:33

That would be a different world, though, wouldn't it? No, not at all, because let me put it this way. Is it possible for God to know that in this world,

01:24:40

I will do X and I could simultaneously have done Y instead of X?

01:24:46

Yeah, but you will do X, correct? Right, but you're trying to put a period there. I'm putting a comma.

01:24:51

I will do X - Can you do anything other than X? Yes. Okay, will you do anything other than X?

01:25:01

No. Okay, so that's the point right there. That I'm freely choosing to do

01:25:07

X instead of Y. And once God selects that world where you will do X - Really?

01:25:13

That is then determined. No. Yes. Why? Tyler wrote something, and I'm interested in if Eric agrees with this.

01:25:26

Tyler texted here. He says, God's knowledge doesn't determine the truth values of the world.

01:25:32

His creation of the world does. No, not determine.

01:25:37

Again, if by determine you would mean make certain, then sure, but not causally determine.

01:25:43

But it would make it certain. And I get the sentiment here, because this is why a lot of, some people will reject

01:25:49

Molinism because they have this, what I would say, an erroneous view that it's determinative.

01:25:55

And that's why some people say that it's eerily close to Calvinism. Because I would agree with a lot of things that some

01:26:02

Calvinists would say that, yeah, God, it's by God's choice that I'm saved, that I exist.

01:26:08

Because of course, if God wanted to save me, then he first had to create me. So it's not just God's choice that I'm saved. It's also

01:26:13

God's choice that I exist. It just so happens that he's able to do that, bring about something with the actions of free creatures.

01:26:20

And that's the difference. And that was Molina's position. So to give a caveat, because I've talked to McGregor over Facebook a little bit.

01:26:27

And he said, if you're talking about what Molina believed, then yes, libertarian free will was essential to him formulating this doctrine.

01:26:34

But if you're just talking about Molinism the way I've talked about it, then sure, you could say it's not essential.

01:26:40

But given that McGregor's thinking more like a historian, this was essential to what Molina believed. And yes, that is often why people turn to that because the way you can reconcile these things with libertarian freedom.

01:26:51

That's why every time, if you're gonna throw in the word determinative, you're gonna have to tell me how you define it.

01:26:56

Because when I think determinative, I'm usually thinking causally determinative. Well, I'm using it this way.

01:27:03

That if God selects a world where we do X, we will not do anything but X.

01:27:12

That's how I'm using it. And that's how you described it. That God selects something and we will do that.

01:27:20

It's determined because we won't do anything but that. Now, I know Chris had a question. I wanna make sure we, because we've got about half an hour left in today's show, it doesn't mean we can't continue this in another, but I also don't want it to be a gang up on Eric, as much fun as that could be.

01:27:39

So I'm gonna say we'll let Chris and Eric go and Eli and I'll be quiet for a bit.

01:27:44

And I didn't get a definition of determinism, of determined by the way, but yeah, we can go. Very fun, by the way.

01:27:50

Thank you, Eric. Sure, Eric. I was just gonna bring up actually what Tyler said. And I was gonna ask you a question because you bring up that it's not causally determinative.

01:27:59

Well, how would God's free, unnecessary choice to actuate this world over any other world that were possible for him to actuate, how would that free, unnecessary choice, because we wouldn't say that it was necessary for him to either create or to create this world, but that action of freely and unnecessarily choosing to actuate this world be the causation for all of the choices in this world?

01:28:25

Because without that first prime move, nothing would ever happen. If I understand you correctly, well, first,

01:28:33

I don't say that God's choice to create this world is what causes our actions. That is what Tyler was saying, or at least implying as I understood it.

01:28:41

And the distinction I made earlier that God is the cause for which I exist, but he's not the cause of my will.

01:28:47

There's a difference. He can create factors that influence my decisions, but influences are not causally determinative, they merely influence.

01:28:54

So if I have libertarian free will, then these factors influence my will, but they don't cause my will, because it is still up to me as to whether or not

01:29:03

I act or refrain from acting upon my influences. Right, but wouldn't it be the case that under Molinism, that the only place that you can actually posit a libertarian free will would be pre -creation?

01:29:15

And the point I'm trying to make is that because we would say that you would have a point if God had to create, like if it was necessary for him to create, and then by him having to create that he had to create this world, then he just has to deal with what he has.

01:29:29

Right, but he makes an unnecessary free choice to create. There's no reason that he has to, there's no reason that he had to choose this world other than his own free decision.

01:29:38

Right, so you can posit libertarian free will in the counterfactuals prior to creation, but post -creation after God's free choice, this determinative factor of all things, which is this choice to create, there is no libertarian freedom.

01:29:54

No, so I would have to ask you to define what you mean by libertarian freedom. As I've defined it, it's you're the originator and source of your will or actions.

01:30:02

You're the first mover of your will or actions. So even if I would grant that I could not have done otherwise, I would argue that that does not eliminate libertarian freedom as long as you're the first mover.

01:30:12

Now, I do think you could have done otherwise, because as I was saying earlier, there's nothing wrong with saying, because I think the issue here is my brothers who disagree with me here are saying,

01:30:23

God knows you will do X period, where I'm saying, no, hold on, let's put a comma there. God knows

01:30:29

I will do X comma, and that I could have done not X or Y. Well, there's nothing wrong with saying

01:30:34

God knows both of those things. It's not as if God knows one thing, he can't know that I could have done the other thing. God would know both these things, and there's nothing wrong with the world in which

01:30:42

God knows I will do X, but could have done Y or not X. All right, and you're using a defense there that actually the compatibilist uses as far as the principle of alternate possibility is concerned, the being able to do otherwise.

01:30:58

Right, so most of the time, a libertarian would, because there are at least seven different senses of the words can or could, when we take that phrase can or could do otherwise, and the libertarian would always pick the countercausal or the contracausal sense, which is the libertarian sense, which would include the categorical ability to do otherwise, right?

01:31:23

That there is the actual, it's not that you just have these two options, but at the point of choice, you could choose either

01:31:30

A or B. There's nothing that keeps you from doing that. That just is what libertarian free will is.

01:31:36

Now, the compatibilist - I would disagree with that. Okay, well, the compatibilist would say that that's not the case, and we would argue basically how you're arguing for we could or we can do otherwise based on some conditional ability rather than categorical, right?

01:31:54

So we could say, I could have did something different in a situation had I wanted to, right?

01:31:59

Had my desire been different or had God decreed differently. So that's the compatibilist defense of that that you're actually using, but most libertarians, which

01:32:08

I would say that you're defining libertarian free will in a different way than most would, they would need and say that it is necessary for the categorical ability to obtain libertarian free will.

01:32:18

Right, and I disagree with that. And it wouldn't be a form of compatibilism what I'm saying is because I'm saying

01:32:23

I'm the first mover. On compatibilism, you are not the first mover. You're an intermediate mover. To briefly explain that,

01:32:29

I've often said, if let's say there's a murder, like when I talk about more responsibility, we know that it was the bullet that actually penetrated the heart and killed the person, but we don't blame the bullet because the bullet was not the first mover of its action.

01:32:41

So let's go a step back. Well, let's look at the gun. Well, no, because the gun also was not the first mover. Then we stop at the person and we blame them.

01:32:48

But if the person was simply an intermediate link in this chain of events, which on compatibilism he would be, then he too, if we don't blame the gun or bullet, then we can't blame the person.

01:32:57

We have to keep going back till we find the first mover. And given your world, not your worldview, but whatever that person's worldview is on compatibilism, whatever first mover that is, that's the person to blame for the entire chain of events.

01:33:10

Okay, cool. Well, that's actually been, have you read Greg Welty's essay on that? No. The whole bullet building thing.

01:33:17

It's a wonderful essay. You ought to check it out. Anyway, it was tailored specifically toward Molinists and it actually uses a gun analogy, the same as you use.

01:33:25

But he would say that the, or I would say, I'm not sure it's been a while since I read his essay, but I would say that the first mover that you're looking for there, we established earlier with God's free choice to create.

01:33:37

It's not your choice at post -creation, right? But the reason why you pulled the trigger and did whatever you did was because God first pulled the trigger in the act of creation.

01:33:47

Well, hold on. First mover - So how far do you want to move back? I'm saying first mover, because I would agree that God's a first mover of existence.

01:33:54

He is the one that created all things. He is the reason for which I exist. But there's a difference between my existence versus my action.

01:34:01

We could also say that a reason for which I exist is my parents, but my parents aren't responsible for my actions.

01:34:06

So yes, God is a first mover in regards to creation, but that's not to say in regards to my will.

01:34:13

Yeah, no, I would agree with that. I would agree that there are different causations that we would have to go into. We would have to talk about, because I wouldn't say that God's causation and man's causation is homogeneous.

01:34:23

I would say that they were different, right? And by doing that, we would have to look at God's causation as hyperphysical, whereas man's would be physical.

01:34:34

But, I mean, you were looking for the first primary mover, which we do have in God. Well, primary mover of my will, not of my existence.

01:34:42

Well, would you have ever made that choice without God's free choice to create? No, and this is why

01:34:48

I like what Norman Geiser says, that God is responsible for the fact of freedom, but he is not responsible for the acts of freedom.

01:34:54

And that's usually used in like a free will defense against evil. So God is responsible for the fact that I exist and have the capacity to act freely, but he is not responsible for the acts which

01:35:04

I freely partake in. Right, which is, again, a classical reformed apologetic when it comes to the defense of the problem of evil in God at the

01:35:13

Odyssey, which is strange because all of those defenses are available to the Molinists as well.

01:35:18

They can dive into the history of reformed apologetics in that way and just grab different defenses and use them the same way that we do.

01:35:27

But that's why I argue, and as Andrew, and I think Eli has argued before, that post -creation

01:35:32

Molinism is no less deterministic than hard determinism. All of the differences and the libertarian language that you can use as far as Molinism is concerned all comes prior to God's first decision to freely create.

01:35:45

Well, I don't know of any Calvinist that agrees to libertarian freedom because if you're gonna be a

01:35:51

Calvinist and adhere to compatibilism, then you can't use the defense I use because on my defense, you are the first mover of your will.

01:35:59

On compatibilism, you are not the first mover. It's determinism. So, I mean,

01:36:05

I guess we - Can I ask a question real quick? I just, because I just wanted, if we could back up, and I do apologize,

01:36:10

Chris. I am right back on your line of reasoning after I asked this question.

01:36:15

Sorry. No, you're good. Go ahead. Of course, I mute him and then he can't ask anything.

01:36:21

That's true. That is true as well. Because I can determine that as the host. But I have the capacity to ask.

01:36:28

You have the capacity to ask. But if I select that you won't do it, then you can't do anything but not ask.

01:36:36

No, let's push it a step further. You could still will to, you just couldn't carry out your action. So you can will a thing without being able to carry out the act that you will.

01:36:42

Therefore, I would determine it. No, that means you're just limiting his action, but not his will. Okay, let me ask the question.

01:36:49

Okay, so you correctly pointed out, and I think this is important because when we use analogies, the analogies we use don't always have a one -to -one correspondence with the point we're trying to make.

01:37:04

So you used the example of a person having a child and that the parent is not responsible for the actions of the child, which

01:37:14

I agree. But God being the parent of us all, so to speak, is not like a human parent that's limited.

01:37:21

God is like the parent who gives birth to his children, knowing precisely what will happen and will happen and will not not happen.

01:37:32

So in some sense, that's different than a parent merely having a kid and not being responsible for what they do.

01:37:39

God is clearly not analogous to that. There is a way in which God chooses to create these children and they do precisely what they will do and they will not do what they won't do.

01:37:52

Because as Andrew points out, once he chooses to create that world, what will happen will happen.

01:38:02

It can't, well, I can't say the word can't because - Right, and that's where we're disagreeing, exactly that and maybe a little bit other stuff, but that's the entire point is, one, this all assumes that dual ability or principle alternative possibilities is a necessary condition for libertarian freedom, which

01:38:18

I disagree with. Can you give an example as to why you disagree with that, just so that I can make sense of it in my own mind? Yeah, and this would be opening up a can of acorns.

01:38:30

So one thing that convinced me of this, and I may even upset some people who agree with libertarian freedom, but I'm free to do that, so let the upsetting begin.

01:38:41

So when you look at Christ, if we take to maximally great being theology and God is maximally perfect, then it would be logically impossible for him to sin.

01:38:55

But did he still freely choose to refrain from sinning? Well, as long as he's a first mover, I'd say yes. It doesn't matter that he could not have done otherwise.

01:39:01

The point is that he is the first mover of his will or actions. I've heard Craig use a similar, well, in an analogy, which there's some problems with all analogies, but in principle, he argued that he said, suppose you're on a diet and you're sitting on your couch and you know that your wife the night before brought home chocolate cake and on your couch, you're contemplating whether or not you're going to eat this cake.

01:39:26

And then you just tell yourself, you know what? No, I'm not going to do it. And then, so you refrain from eating the cake.

01:39:32

And then let's say later on in the night, you wake up to grab a glass of water from the fridge and you open it.

01:39:38

And lo and behold, the cake wasn't there. And you're like, oh, where's the cake? And your wife says, oh, I took it to work early this morning, which means even if you wanted to, when you went there, you know, there was no cake, but that doesn't mean just because you could not have eaten the cake doesn't mean you were not the first mover of refraining to choose to eat that cake in the first place.

01:39:55

It's a relatively, the principle is that as long as you're the first mover, you don't need the ability to do otherwise.

01:40:01

So that's something that started to convince me that dual ability was not a necessary condition for libertarian freedom.

01:40:07

And then another example would be something like infants. I would argue that they have libertarian freedom if they're first movers.

01:40:13

And they just perhaps have not developed or don't have the capacity to do something like think in certain ways or have certain disciplines developed.

01:40:23

So they can't do otherwise, but it doesn't mean that they're not the first movers. As long as you're not causally determined by something external or prior to yourself and you're the originator of your will or actions,

01:40:32

I would argue you have free will, libertarian freedom. Would you say that the ability to do otherwise is a necessary condition for being blameworthy or praiseworthy in regards to moral actions?

01:40:48

Um, no, I don't think so. Because like I said, as long as you're the first mover. So someone could not, in one sense, not have the ability to do otherwise and can still be morally culpable for what they do.

01:41:07

Well, yeah. And that you could even hash it out differently because it could have, in some sense, lost some type of ability by, let's say addiction or something like that.

01:41:18

But as long as they're not causally determined by something else, then at some point it was, in other words, it would be their fault that they're in the position they're in.

01:41:27

If they're addicted to drugs, they can't just will to not be addicted. Rather, they cannot make themselves not be addicted.

01:41:34

They could still will it, but they can't make themselves not addicted. But it could also be the case it was their fault for the addiction or whatever the case is that they've, whatever steps they took.

01:41:44

But as long as they're the first mover, then they're the ones that are ultimately responsible for everything that happens. Okay, so let me ask this.

01:41:50

And what I do, I want to give a couple minutes because we have someone that came in seeking the narrow way.

01:41:59

I just want to make sure to see if she has questions. I want to be able to give a little bit of time to get to them. But so let me just say this.

01:42:06

You keep saying that we're the first mover. Of our will. Of our will. But once God selects that world, then ultimately he's really the first mover because he's choosing that world and we can't, we will do only what we will do in that world.

01:42:28

And he knew that. Therefore, it is because he selects it, shall we say, elects it, because of his election, this will happen.

01:42:44

That's where I keep coming back to. He's really the first mover because in all these different worlds that they play out, they're only playing out in his mind.

01:42:57

They're not actual yet. They only are actualized when he actualizes that world.

01:43:03

Therefore, he first actualizes the world and then all these things take place.

01:43:11

So he ultimately is not only the first mover, but elects every detail that's going to happen in that world.

01:43:18

Yeah, I'm having difficulty seeing how, how we are the first movers if we are contingent beings.

01:43:28

I mean, we're contingent. So I have difficulty understanding that concept of being a genuine first mover.

01:43:36

And do you understand, Eric, that a libertarian free choice is kind of like an autonomous choice, a completely autonomous choice?

01:43:51

Well, before we go there, because at first I didn't know what you mean by that. Let me put it this way. When I proposed to my wife,

01:43:56

I set up the entire situation, everything from the dress she would wear to the shoes, the jewelry, the time, the music that we play in the background, the place we would go to.

01:44:06

I determined the circumstances and I knew what she would do. It doesn't mean she could not have done otherwise. And it is, she did what she will do, but that in no way took away her ability to say no.

01:44:18

So just because I know what circumstances it would take... Yeah, but let me just break it, stop you in this, because here's where I see the difference.

01:44:27

And this is why I keep asking you, once God selects a world where your wife will marry you, will she ever not marry you once he selects that world?

01:44:41

Well, again, I think this is what I was saying earlier, where you're kind of asking an incoherent question, because if you say, if your wife will do

01:44:48

X, will she not do X? Well, if you say she will do X and that's what she will do, she won't do because that's what she will do.

01:44:55

But that has nothing to do with whether or not we're free. But here's... No, that has nothing to do with determinism.

01:45:01

No, determinism is being called external and prior to yourself. If I'm not caused by something external or prior to myself,

01:45:08

I'm not causally determined to do that. All right. So here's... Eric, I want to give you less word for this.

01:45:16

Then I want to go to Seeking the Narrow Way, see if she has some questions. And if she doesn't, we're going to wrap up. We'll come back to it.

01:45:22

Okay, and tell me if this helps. So first, God is choosing amongst possible worlds in which, and if we're going to grant libertarian freedom, then he's choosing amongst worlds of things that I do freely.

01:45:37

So if we grant I'm doing these things freely, then in no means can this be determinative, causally determinative.

01:45:44

If it's causally determinative, then I didn't do it freely. If I didn't freely, then it can't be causally determinative. So if you're going to grant that, at least for the sake of argument, then in no way can you call it causally determinative.

01:45:53

For example, if there is no possible world in which

01:45:58

I will freely eat dog crap for a dollar, then

01:46:03

God could not choose a world in which I do that and cause me to do it. It has to be a world in which

01:46:09

I do it freely. So if we grant that God chooses a world in which I do something freely, then just because he knows what happened for certain doesn't mean it's been causally determined to happen.

01:46:19

Okay, so, okay, first off, we now officially know that your position is wrong.

01:46:27

No, no, no, you're going to love this. You know how we know? Leighton Flowers just commented, good job,

01:46:32

Eric. So he's agreeing with you. Only kidding,

01:46:38

Leighton. All right, let me, I want to bring, I was about ready to go insane right now.

01:46:49

Leighton's going to do a four -hour episode on that now. Oh, be nice, Andrew.

01:46:55

By the way, by the way, I'm going to do what I reprimanded Leighton just said, hey,

01:47:00

Andrew, love you. I think, Eric, you're doing an awesome job and this is really, it's really helpful.

01:47:06

I genuinely, I find this helpful, especially all joking aside about the acorns.

01:47:12

That was very helpful in allowing me to distinguish this kind of, can

01:47:17

I do this, you know, or could I do that? And that's a very helpful distinction because I didn't think of that before.

01:47:23

So I do appreciate it. Okay, so, and just for Eric to think about and if maybe he can answer, we'll see,

01:47:31

Seeking the Narrow Way says, but the issue that I see is that how can we have a libertarian free will when we don't exist?

01:47:40

Just want to think about, but I added in Seeking the Narrow Way. If you want to unmute yourself,

01:47:46

I don't know if you have any, I know you've been hanging out for a while and I want to, since we do do open questions, I didn't know if you had one or if you want to.

01:47:54

Wanting to speak on this, so. Well, I do want to speak on this. And first, thank you all for this conversation.

01:48:01

It's really interesting. I'm closer to Eric's side than anyone else is. And that's kind of what

01:48:06

I wanted to ask. Like all of these questions about possible worlds and everything is very interesting, but we know that God created a world in which he made

01:48:19

Adam and Eve and they are free will beings who created offspring and their offspring created offspring.

01:48:26

So basically what's wrong with God creating what he created, which is a world full of free will beings.

01:48:33

And he just knows what it is that we were going to do. Was that a question for me or for Andrew?

01:48:42

I would say Andrew, because I do believe in libertarian free will.

01:48:48

And why does there have to be a world where God created knowing or choosing every choice that I make, if that makes any sense?

01:48:59

Well, so I'm answering, when I'm saying that I'm answering for the position that Molinist would have, that God looks at all of the choices we make, knowing what all the outcomes of every choice that everybody in all of history will make, and then selecting one of those worlds.

01:49:23

And that's the one he actualizes. That's the one that we're in. That would be the position that Molinist.

01:49:31

Yeah. Okay. So that's not the position that Calvinist make, because that's what I kept hearing is that God created what he created and we can't veer away from it.

01:49:41

I think on Molinism... Yeah, hold on, let me just say this. I forget your first name.

01:49:47

I'm sorry, but Seeking the Narrow Way. Yeah, you can just call me

01:49:52

Seeking. Okay. So here's the thing, Seeking. This is why

01:49:59

I say in my position, Eric disagrees with me, I understand that. But this is why

01:50:05

I say that Molinism is more determinism than Hyper -Calvinism is.

01:50:13

Okay, that's why I come to that conclusion, because of the way that I'm viewing

01:50:18

Molinism. Right. Okay, I do understand that. I guess I had a bit of a misunderstanding, probably came in a little late.

01:50:28

It's not an easy thing to understand. So it's something that does take... And this is why when

01:50:35

Eli said he wanted to just have a discussion, and this is why it's not a debate. And Eric and I have done this before on my

01:50:42

YouTube channel, because we want to have this kind of discussion where we can disagree.

01:50:48

The only name -calling is done in jest. The ultimate in name -calling,

01:50:55

Eric, Layton Flower says, Eric is brilliant. I mean, there you go. There's the problem right there.

01:51:00

You're in trouble. You're in trouble. I'm just saying. Well, you know, he was paid to do otherwise.

01:51:06

And, you know, he was either free or God determined him to do that. No, God selected a world where Layton Flowers would think that you're brilliant.

01:51:14

Yeah, really. The fact that you mentioned his name like over three times, he's going to guarantee to just appear in this show.

01:51:22

Can I say something? I just want to clarify something. I don't know. Can you? What was...

01:51:27

Oh, stop. Getting back to the question that Seeking was asking,

01:51:34

I think the difference between Calvinism and Molinism is that God determines the truth values of counterfactual...

01:51:44

Counterfactual is a creaturely freedom. On Molinism, God does not determine the truth values of counterfactual free...

01:51:53

Free... Liberationally free acts. Sorry if I misworded that. Would I be correct in saying that?

01:51:58

God doesn't determine the truth values of those things. And that's kind of a point of contention in these kinds of discussions, because then we ask what grounds those truths and get into the whole, you know, the grounding objection and things like that.

01:52:11

Am I understanding that correctly? Yeah. And I think... And Seeking, I think you're understanding it perfectly.

01:52:17

It's just that they just happen to disagree with, you know, a position like yours or mine. And what,

01:52:23

Eli, you're bringing up is a good point, because here's where I would tend to shy away from Calvinism, because if God is determining the truth value of these things, then, as I've understood it, and I think we've talked about this, it's because God has caused these things.

01:52:39

But see, I don't believe God has caused these... What do you mean, caused, though? What do you think... In a first order sense, he was the one that pulled the trigger that led to whatever action...

01:52:48

What do you mean by pulling the trigger? What do you mean by cause... And I... This is a genuine...

01:52:53

It's not like giving pushback, like... Right. I'm having difficulty understanding what you or people who hold your position, what you understand as what it means how

01:53:04

God causes. Because we, personally, I think that God causes all things, but I'm not sure what

01:53:11

I mean by that. I know that there are different senses in which causation can take.

01:53:17

There are ways in which you could understand causation and be like, wow, like, man, that would make God the author of evil. But then there are other ways you could understand causation that doesn't.

01:53:26

And I'm not sure exactly how to explain that, just me personally. What do you think Calvinists mean when we talk about that?

01:53:33

Yeah, and then I would just recommend using a different word than cause. But, okay, let's take... As I understand it, if Calvinists...

01:53:41

Most Calvinists... All Calvinists I know are compatibilists. I don't know of any that are not compatibilists. But given compatibilism...

01:53:46

On compatibilism, you... Given it's a version of self -determinism, your will and actions are caused by something external and prior to yourself.

01:53:57

Now, if you... And most will claim that it is your desires that necessarily cause your actions. So if it's your desires that cause your actions, you only need to ask yourself what causes your desires.

01:54:08

And those are going to be external factors, external and prior to yourself. So if the external factors cause your desire and your desires cause your action, then you are still an intermediate link in a chain of events.

01:54:18

You are not the first mover. But on my view, my brain and body chemistry can cause the desire to eat and cause hunger.

01:54:27

But that cause, though that cause is determined by biological factors beyond my control, the decision and will to act upon those desires is still up to me.

01:54:37

On compatibilism, you are necessarily causally determined by those things. On my view of libertarian freedom...

01:54:43

On the libertarian freedom view, you are not caused by those things. On your view, do you believe that someone can choose their desires?

01:54:51

Or are there certain things that we... Like, for example, did I... I happen to love, and this is genuinely true,

01:54:57

I happen to love mint chocolate chip ice cream with whipped cream and hot fudge and hot caramel. Oh my goodness,

01:55:03

I love it. I don't know if I chose to love, to desire that when I want ice cream.

01:55:09

It seems as though I just happen to, given other factors perhaps unknown to myself. Do you believe that people choose their desires?

01:55:18

Not all of them. I'm perfectly fine with saying a lot of our desires and things are causally determined, but note that on the libertarian perspective, these things are merely influences, they are not causes.

01:55:30

So if I have libertarian freedom, then I must still choose to act or refrain from acting upon my influences.

01:55:36

Okay, so if the desire does not cause the choice, then what do you mean when you say, if you do say, that the will is caused by the self?

01:55:51

What is it about the self that brings about my choice, if my choice is not determined by desire, by other factors?

01:56:03

Well, if you're going to ask what causes the self, and if you're asking given my position, then

01:56:09

I would, in a respectful way, say you're not understanding my position, because if I'm the first mover, you cannot ask what came before that.

01:56:16

Kind of like when an atheist asks, well, what caused God? Well, no, he's a first mover. Oh, I'm not misunderstanding it. I understand what you're saying there.

01:56:21

I knew you were going to say that, but I'm trying otherwise. So then

01:56:27

I couldn't have said otherwise if you knew I was going to say that. No, no, no, I knew you were going to say that, and it wasn't like a trap question.

01:56:33

I'm just trying to wrap my head around what it looks like to just make a choice completely not determined,

01:56:40

I guess, because I'm a Calvinist, and I think in these categories. Okay, and I want to wrap this up, and I know

01:56:47

John's going to do an after show, and you guys are more than welcome to go over to the after show if you want.

01:56:53

Once he gives us the link, I'll put it in here, but Eric, I want to ask you this question, and I'll close with this, okay?

01:57:02

You say that we are the first mover, correct? Yes. Okay. Do we exist when we are that first mover?

01:57:12

Well, first mover to our will. But the will doesn't exist yet, does it? We haven't been created.

01:57:18

Right. So until God actualizes that world, we don't exist.

01:57:26

Therefore, we really are not the first mover. God is the first mover because we don't have a will until He actualizes the world, and once He actualizes that world, we do what is selected in that world.

01:57:43

Well, when we're talking about first movers, we're talking about first mover relative to what? You're talking about first mover relative to existence, but then you're conflating that with first mover relative to will.

01:57:54

There's a difference there. So He's the first mover relative to my will. Hold on. So you can respond to what

01:57:59

I'm actually saying. I'm saying that we don't have a will. It doesn't exist. You can't be the first mover if you don't have a will.

01:58:07

There is no libertarian free will until you first exist. Yes. That's like saying you can't have thoughts until you exist.

01:58:16

Right. Exactly. So we're not the first mover. God's the first mover because He determines the world. So you're saying it's not possible for God to be responsible for my nature and my ability to will without being the one that wills it

01:58:28

Himself. Can you say that again, Eric? Yeah. Are you saying, which

01:58:34

I don't think you're... So let me just come out and say it. I think this is what you would have to believe, but I don't think you believe this.

01:58:39

You would have to believe that God is not only responsible for the fact that I have a will in the first place without equally being responsible for the very thing that I will to happen.

01:58:50

In other words, I think God can be responsible for the fact that I have a will, but it doesn't mean He's therefore responsible for everything that I will.

01:58:57

If what you're saying is true, you would have to concede that in order to be responsible for the fact that I have a will,

01:59:02

He must equally be responsible for every single thing that I will, good or bad. And that's what I reject. I don't know what you mean by responsible.

01:59:11

Yeah. What do you mean by responsible? Here's what we're going to do because we've been going for two hours.

01:59:18

And as I said to John, we could probably go for another two hours and still not be any closer. And I do want to try to limit,

01:59:26

I do want to try to cap the show at two hours because of the fact that basically we're going to turn this into a podcast.

01:59:34

If we end up going longer, we'll go another two hours and have two shows. But I have no problem having

01:59:43

Eric and Eli come back because truthfully, I think Matt needs a longer break because, you know, and folks be praying for Matt and his wife, folks who may have come in late.

01:59:58

You know, the reason Matt's not here is I told him he really, he's moving. He's packing up his house.

02:00:04

He's going to be leaving in a couple of weeks to move to Arizona. And, you know, then what we end up seeing is his wife has had several surgeries.

02:00:13

So it hasn't been easy. And so I just didn't think he needed one more thing to do.

02:00:21

He could spend two hours with his wife. So this is the thing that, let me try to summarize this, okay?

02:00:29

In my understanding of what Eric has been explaining, and I think this is where we end up seeing some things,

02:00:38

I think it's clear that in this discussion that God is the one that ends up selecting the world, and once he does, we will do what we must do in that world because that's the world that is actualized.

02:00:55

I believe that's what, you know, we've been discussing. And so the thing that I think is going to rub against many people, especially

02:01:04

Calvinists, would be the idea that man is the first mover and not God is the first mover.

02:01:11

I think we're going to have big differences there. Now, keep in mind, for folks that may have come in late,

02:01:19

Eric said earlier that Molinism does not require a belief in a libertarian free will.

02:01:27

And so much of this discussion has been on the area of libertarian free will, and this is something we hear from many

02:01:36

Molinists, but I just want to give the caution as we wrap up so folks don't think that Molinism requires that, because he was explaining that it's not necessary.

02:01:49

So I did want to explain that. So I want to wrap up and just,

02:01:56

I want to thank Eli and Eric. I know Kristen came in and there's some others that, someone that came in toward the end here and didn't get a chance to ask questions.

02:02:05

Julio, I think it was Julio, I can't see the name, the font's too small. But if you guys want to come back next week, we're, you know, we could continue this.

02:02:16

I hope that folks realize a couple things. One, you're not going to just get two hours of this and think you fully understand

02:02:24

Molinism. I think Eric would agree. He's nodding his head yes, because this isn't something that just takes two hours to figure out.

02:02:32

It takes some study. As you're seeing with Eli, and this would be my challenge to folks, is take a look at what

02:02:39

Eli's doing. He's trying to understand from Eric's position, trying to take the time to make sure he understands the terminology and recognizing, as you heard him say, that he's having trouble understanding certain things because of his

02:02:54

Calvinistic position. So he's understanding things in his terminology and he's trying to get out of his presupposition into the presupposition of another.

02:03:04

That's something that not enough people do. All right. I will say also, there's someone that emailed me, he's in the comments here in YouTube, Israel rise.

02:03:17

He wants to debate me on whether the African Americans are actually the Israelites. So we may be able to set that up.

02:03:24

It is always fun to watch, you know, these fake Hebrew Israelites go down in flames when they come upon a real

02:03:32

Israelite. Now you need the lighter. Someone whose line actually traces back to Levi and just saying,

02:03:41

I would like to see the genealogy chart that you have. Just show it, you know, produce it.

02:03:46

That'd be fun. So we may set that up and see now Eric is laughing. See, we can all agree now.

02:03:53

Eric and Eli and I can all be in agreement. So we'll try to set something like that up hopefully soon.

02:04:00

And but I hope that you guys will subscribe to the

02:04:06

Apologetics Live podcast. This is it turns into a podcast. This will drop tomorrow.

02:04:12

So I got to do a bunch of editing. You know, basically what we'll do is edit everything Eric said out.

02:04:18

And, you know, you know, I mean, just because Layton Flowers said that, you know, I'm smart, but Eric's smarter.

02:04:25

So I got to edit it out so that that would never be believed. That's all, you know. So yeah, but I do want to let folks know that this will be a podcast as part of the

02:04:37

Christian podcast community. And I am amazed. I'm amazed. We have not even really opened up or advertised the

02:04:44

Christian podcast community for having people join us yet. And we have like a dozen people in queue waiting to join.

02:04:53

And it's just it's really kind of neat that we got a lot of people that want to be part of a community of Christian podcasters that would want to promote one another.

02:05:04

And so that's just encouraging. Do subscribe to my podcast, Andrew Rapport's Rap Report.

02:05:13

There's two of them, actually. The daily is Monday through Friday, two minutes a day. Even Eli has the attention span for two minutes a day.

02:05:21

That's I believe it. And every day right now, what I've been doing is going through a different book of the

02:05:26

Bible and giving a summary of every book of the Bible there. We have the weekly one,

02:05:32

Andrew Rapport's Rap Report. That's going to be an hour -long one. And so that would be a good one to subscribe to.

02:05:40

This week, this Sunday, I plan to discuss 1

02:05:45

Timothy and Titus on the qualifications of pastors and deacons.

02:05:51

So someone asked me if I would address all the qualifications. I'm going to try to do that in one episode.

02:05:57

I hope it doesn't go too long, but it'll be shorter than this one. I know that. So once I get the link from Mr.

02:06:06

John, which he gave it to me, I will drop it in here for you guys to jump over there and join there.

02:06:18

So Eli and Eric, do you see the chat here? Where? Okay, so I'll tell you what we'll do.

02:06:31

Yeah, yeah. Where it says Karma Video and there's a link. That's the hangout for the after show. If you guys want to continue the discussion, you can head over there and that ends up going on to the

02:06:43

Council's, actually, I think it ends up going on to the,

02:06:51

I think it goes on to Atomic Apologetic YouTube channel, but I will drop the link in to the

02:07:01

YouTube as well for folks who want to join, continue discussion. So next week,

02:07:06

I don't know if we're going to have Matt back or maybe we'll have Eric and Eli continue this and then maybe

02:07:12

Seeking can jump in earlier and get more questions answered. Can I say something real quick? Andrew, just real quick.

02:07:19

Tomorrow I'm going to ask about the word can, right? Oh man, look at the acorns. It's never over.

02:07:26

I just want to let people know that Eric and I will be having a discussion tomorrow and if it's okay with Eric now,

02:07:34

I'm kind of switching it up because the intention was to talk about Molinism, but I think we covered so much here. We're going to have a discussion on apologetics.

02:07:41

We may get into issues of apologetic methodology and things like that so people can keep their eyes out for that.

02:07:47

I will be posting it on my Facebook page, Revealed Apologetics, so if anyone's interested in that, they can look up Revealed Apologetics.

02:07:55

Okay, so Revealed Apologetics. Eric, your ministry, you came up with a very creative name for your ministry.

02:08:04

You're about as creative as Justin Peters with justinpeters .org,

02:08:10

but Eric, what's the name of your ministry there? Eric Hernandez Ministry. Erichernandezministry .com,

02:08:16

YouTube slash C slash Eric Hernandez. You can see some of the debates I've done, a lot of stuff with atheists and things like that.

02:08:23

Excellent job. I even did something with Psy, with Matt Dillahunty, with David Smalley, things like that.

02:08:29

A lot of stuff on the soul. Yeah. Yeah, so what we end up seeing is basically he lacks creativity.

02:08:38

I just couldn't come up with - Don't do that, Andrew. I've watched his discussions with atheists.

02:08:44

Coming from a hardcore presuppositionalist, I think Eric does an amazing job. Right, so Eric, we'll see if Eric remembers this, but this was from the debate with Matt Slick and David Smalley, and you and I were there for that.

02:08:56

Here's a quick from David Smalley when I got up to ask him a question, and then we'll end the show with this.

02:09:04

Mr. Smalley, do you believe that abortion is moral? Oh boy. I'm glad I'm debating him instead of you.