Molinism and Michael Rood on a Jumbo Edition of the Dividing Line

Good to have you along with us today. Someone just posted a channel. You know, you're desperate for an answer when you look on the second page of Google That does say something about our society today.

Boko Haram, Nigeria, and the Failure of Muslim Condemnation

I must I must confess Hey next week gonna be up in the Sacramento area. I was just saying to Micah who is up in that area. I was saying I'm I'm a little scared because the the California California Capitol is there and I'm not accustomed to being around that many Unconfined crazy people and In fact, I just saw today.

There's there there's a bill in the California legislature as long as it gets the legislature. It'll pass legislature unless it makes sense to allow People to dine with their dogs. Yeah, so that's. It's California for it for you.

Nothing is too zany to get through the California state legislature. It is it's gonna be scary, but we'll be there. We're doing foreign missions work. I consider this foreign missions work Go to Sacramento, huh?

Craziness craziness. And then a little while ago Sam schmoon blah are tweeted a Article that was just post on answering Muslims. I took a quick look at it and I noticed a quote from Yaya snow Which I found interesting.

It says I'm saddened to note that no Muslim country is in the list helping the Nigerian authorities find the missing girls. Let's think about that for a moment. Last week I was looking around and I found a single one article Written by a Muslim arguing from the Hadith the Quran the Sunnah against what Boko Haram has done and is doing a single one and I even asked some folks, you know of any Any articles?

I mean I would think that The Muslim websites would be flooded with Muslim scholars demonstrating that what Boko Haram is doing is un-islamic. It's contradictory to the Hadith is contradictory to the example of Muhammad.

It's contradictory to the Quran. I would think there'd be a bazillion of those running around. I found one and Then I looked a little closer and it was bad by an Akhmedy muslim. Now who are the who's that?

Well.

From.

The Sunni perspective the Akhmedy are not even Muslims. They are similar to they would have the same. You see the Akhmedy believe that there has been a prophet since Muhammad, so What defines Islam from the Sunni perspective is the absolute?

Unrepeatability of.

Prophethood after Muhammad. I mean, that's just you might argue that Next to Tawheed and I would argue in some ways maybe even in place of Tawheed.

In.

Some people's thinking the uniqueness of the prophethood of Muhammad is is absolutely the definitional truth of Islam and. So obviously from the Sunni perspective the Akhmedy are not are not Muslims. They are the same as from our perspective what Jehovah's Witnesses would be a cult.

So on and so forth. So I think that's important to keep in mind and here it was it was an Akhmedy that was and they're known for being peaceful. I mean, I've told the story about running into the into the imam of the mosque on Long Island.

It was one of the debates and it was a wonderful guy. And unfortunately in places like Pakistan the Sunnis beat up on the Akhmedy killed him persecuted them things like that. But the one article I found arguing that what Boko Haram is doing is Un-Islamic came from Akhmedy, I I'm really surprised I'm really really surprised but Yaya Snow sort of points it out here.

I'm saddened to note that no Muslim country is in the list helping the Nigerian authorities find the missing girls. I think part of that is because they're just scared to death. I mean Boko Haram scares Al Qaeda so if.

That tells a little something about how radical These individuals are but let's let's face it people who kidnap little girls. Are the very essence of evil very essence of evil. I mean there should be just a chorus of condemnation and the equivalent of excommunication.

Because I mean these people are the very essence of cowardice. Kidnapping schoolgirls, really. How about trying to kidnap like SEAL team six, would you like to try that a little more, you know. A little fair fight, you know, try it try that out.

I.

Mean these people are so evil. I can just honestly say that without the slightest hesitation. Not only is hellfire The there where they're going unless in some amazing way. They are led to a knowledge of Christ.

But I think if they found where the leaders this group were a hellfire missile would be a very good idea. It really would be. I mean these people these people are on the very same level as the Nazi SS and and and the.

You know Stalin and and all those guys they're they're just as disgustingly evil and Yet no one will no one will use that terminology anymore. I'll tell you what if if we live in a world where you can't even identify that which is disgustingly evil as disgustingly evil.

Those who are disgustingly evil will take over. Because there'll be no one to fight them and that's what political correct correctness does it rips the soul out of humanity. It's makes me ill anyway. So yeah, we we have that going on with with Boko Haram.

Switching Topics to Molinism and the Role of Philosophy

I grabbed this video Totally changing subjects. I grabbed this video. I don't know it might be a Month ago or more. I don't know never got around to it. And the only reason I got around to it today is we're still doing all sorts of moving of stuff around and working on my desk and things like that and so I I was moving stuff off my desktop my computer desktop on my new Mac.

Because you know how it gets all well my this is too cluttered over here. I'm gonna have to clean it up pretty soon and you you stick stuff into archive Files and eventually, you know says I'm out of hard drive space and you wonder why I don't know how it happened.

But so I was moving stuff over on my on my new Mac and I ran across this video and I said, you know, I Don't think I ever got to this and so I put in Dropbox Open it up over on this side and I started listening to this.

I was like, oh man, this is this is I need to I need to cover this.

Now I.

Almost hesitate. I almost hesitate.

Because.

There's more in this video clip I'd like to respond to but I just don't have the time to go into all the details and I know what happens. When you respond to one element of something you don't respond everything else about.

Ah. But you can't respond to him on this and it and I have a feeling this guy has probably got some. Shall we say interesting? Online friends. Who could. Oh someone's asking if they can get my shirt at Carla's site.

No, we.

We.

Only had a we only make these sort of like for you and I basically and we only done it a couple times. You know, it's actually a nice place. The person asking though might be worth worth getting something for it.

Well, we'll work it out. We'll work it out. Anyway pop the phones up. Why. Oh. Okay. Well, I'll I'll I'll do that. Eventually. Anyways, why? Is this guy prophetic and he knew I was gonna be referring to him.

I. I don't know if that's if that's a good thing or not, but some did he. Where'd they go? There they are. Okay. Establishing connection with server still establishing connection with server connection failed.

In that great. Try again, huh? Okay. All right. It's the live program establishing connections if it doesn't come up immediately. I ain't getting through so You you might need to just you just have to tag.

Yes, you have to private message me whatever it is. You're trying to communicate to me because I can't bring the phones up. So I'm I'm sorry about that. But oh. Okay. You have to. Yeah, you'd have to use that to let me know what's uh, what's what's on online?

Well, we'll get is does he need to get in immediately is. All right. I don't want to burn the guy's cell. We'll get back to the guy who's gonna be mean and nasty to me later on but I've got a got a call from from a fellow who's been in the in the trenches literally and.

So let's let's talk to rich. Hi rich. Hey, how you doing today James? I should I say greetings colonel.

Yeah, I've been retired for a few years, but I appreciate that. Well, but don't you ever once in a while go Semper Fi? Yeah, I still get into that. I mean it's kind of it's different now. I'm sorry, we missed each other when you were out in our neck of woods, but I'm sure you'll be out here again.

You know, you've been bringing up William Lane Craig a lot and then you had that fellow you debated on Calvinism the No longer reformed guy the young yes, and no longer reformed guy. You know one of the things that's been bothering me for some time I had Had a cigar with Mike Horton like two years ago.

And one of the things he was talking about was he had he had William Lane Craig Into his one of his seminary classes and one of the things William Lane Craig Talked about is how he believed his knowledge was Univocal with God and I know that's a technical term, but I think it really it fundamentally Identifies what William Lane Craig?

Problem is as well as the person you talk to it. You know One of the things that perform theology and actually handed down in Christian theology Historically was that God is completely different than us than us.

I mean are the difference between the way we see things and the way that God understands things is Theologically different in in the in the sense that we can have true theology. But it's creaturely theology and what God's theology or knowledge of things is It's as the creator and one of the things that came out loud and clear in your debate with the former Calvinist is that he kept looking for analogs that he could understand.

They thought that analogical thinking was that he would have to see it exactly the way God would see it or it wouldn't be or wouldn't be Just and when you look at the way William Lane Craig operates It makes complete sense that if he thinks that the way he views a thing is the way that God is then you're going to Start with philosophy because whatever corresponds Thinking in terms of what humans would consider to be just and true then he's going to See that as something that's good.

So he's going to proceed from there and then he's going to like a Procrustean bed make pretty determined God is think this isn't this nation then try to Happens as you enter into it in it and I think in terms of how the idea that kind of devised there.

Well, I think really what you're talking about Though very much soaked in the in the language of the Institute's a number of times there is what I've One of the things I was going to be getting to later today when I when I respond to an article that's been written in Criticism of me that starts off philosophy matters rather than theology matters.

Is this this whole? The the starting point and where we begin is is all important and it just strikes me that for the Christian the starting point has to be God's revelation now the these individuals try to say well, but but the revelations in words and and there's there's all sorts of theories of language and theories of truth and theories of Meaning and and there's all this other stuff that you've got to talk about as if when God said to Adam Do not eat of this tree.

Adam said I'm really not sure what you mean. Could we discuss the theory of? epistemology that you're currently utilizing to provide this command to me because I might Misunderstand it in light of this person's particular theory of the incommunicability of certain modalistic ways of thought and you know, and and they just go running off into these areas rather than I Obviously believe that a Christian begins with God's revelation and then under the Lordship of Christ, you can examine all these other areas, but the the concern I have is the God centeredness and the Revelation centeredness of Christianity versus very much the man centeredness of man's philosophical systems and that ends up and see the real concern I have with Mullen ism is that this ends up being imported as a as a hermeneutical methodology As a hermeneutical concept that then ends up determining What we're going to believe and it is just so foreign to scripture it's so far outside of of Christian thought all the way up to the time of the Reformation.

That and and it would never suggest itself the individual who is simply reading The scriptures and when I say simply reading I'm not saying that anyone ever reads the scriptures without certain presuppositions.

But the point is that you will never Utilizing the same hermeneutical methodology that you use to demonstrate the deity of Christ the doctrine of Trinity the resurrection or justification by faith or anything else you will never come to Mullen ism by the consistent utilization of that kind of interpretation and so to to import this the way that they do and Then to basically sit back and say and you know what if you don't get it.

It's just because you're not quite as up to speed as all the rest of us are you know? It's it all and it really becomes a a Form of Gnosticism where you have to go through this certain, you know, these certain ceremonies called the graduate philosophy programs to.

Be.

Granted the the great insight to be able to understand finally the actual activities of God. When it has so little to do with the text of scripture itself That it's it's an amazing thing.

Right, I mean and I think that you know issue when I see it is, you know in in the In fact, I'm by the man still has a really interesting article in there on natural revelation and the conviction that even even that all knowledge is by right hand in relation to the Creator and including the world as a data point or the universe is data and that.

And knowledge comes by the consumption of that data. Rather than Peter can we actually even understand the bigger version or.

Yeah, that has a has a tremendous impact and that'll come up a good bit as we look at an article I'm about to look at so maybe you'll find that to be helpful too. But hey, thanks for your call today Rich.

Thank you. God bless you. All right. God bless.

Critiquing Zachary Lawson on Molinism and the Grounding Objection

Well that changes everything I was going to do instead of going to the video. We'll go ahead and review this article and then hopefully have enough time to get to the video Toward the end of the program depending on how long we go one of the reasons we've sort of started doing three o 'clock our time six o 'clock Eastern Time is it gives us time to sort of make a decision as to how long the program is going to go and Fit everything in without having to rush.

So we will see Zachary Lawson wrote a blog article that as I said began with the The the line philosophy matters and Then it says James White missing the mark on Molanism and he's a nice guy and he says he likes me and he even put a picture of My book on the Quran with him doing a thumbs up next to it, so That's that's great.

But I It is frustrating to me and I and it's frustrating. I think to a lot of people in the in the audience How often these discussions of Molanism seem to just cause us to pass like ships in the night and attempting to speak with Molanists and just as the common Accusation is what you just don't know enough about philosophy.

You know, I don't run around. I don't spend my time Reading the newest blog post the newest published articles. But I have taught Christian philosophy religion for years.

And.

It's it's not like I'm I'm a complete idiot. I Think one of the problems is for some of you guys, especially some of you younger guys. You think that the only way to address these issues is by I'll sort of the if you ever read the mission, I you know, you know what I'm about to make reference to but the The Jewish leaders would always make their points by quoting from somebody else rabbi, so-and-so said this and rabbi so-and-so said that and when you read the mission I just drives you crazy after a while and there is a form of scholarship where You demonstrate your your great knowledge Biology referring to other folks this generally leaves the average person that you're attempting to edify Completely in the dark because they haven't read those things.

My tendency in teaching on whatever it is, you know later on I'm gonna be talking about textual criticism. Well, I may make reference to some certain scholars, but I'll explain why and Unfortunately, a lot of my very philosophically minded especially young male critics Seem to think that you demonstrate your great understanding by how often you quote someone who's bigger than you are.

Anyway, we we don't seem to be talking very clearly and I'd like to respond to some of the things were said in this in this article he says Molan ism is rather philosophically robust and one can't hear Molan ism in its own language with philosophical misunderstandings.

He says it is worth mentioning that in this latest podcast dr White's comments reflect a somewhat more accurate understanding of Molan ism than came across in a previous podcast. Which I addressed here and here.

Well notice something. I don't think my views of Molan ism have changed. Last podcast. What was I doing? I was responding and reviewing a podcast by William Lane Craig where he is specifically responding to criticisms and so the clarity comes out.

Primarily in what I was reviewing that's very common. But to say it's rather Molan ism is rather philosophically robust I would say it's just simply philosophically complicated unnecessarily so and in my experience once you find a chink in the armor of one guy Most Molanists will say yeah.

But this guy over here has a different view on that and then when you go after him. Well, but but have you read this guy over here? It is a constantly shifting target.

And.

When you say one can't hear Molan ism in its own language, here's the problem guys. If you guys just want to say Molan ism exists out there and you all just go talk about philosophically fine. Don't make application to the Bible.

As soon as you bring it into the area of theology now you need to change the standards that you use in the evaluation of merely philosophical concepts and discussions and What you need to hear me saying is you guys who put philosophy first you're promoting Horrific eisegesis of the text and you're undercutting the theology of the revealed Word of God on the basis of your robust philosophical positions.

That's my problem that's the issue here. Don't don't say well, you know, you're you know The fellow who wants to be on next if it's gonna come on next week. He said why I don't think you're philosophically trained enough to do good systematic theology.

You know this this from someone who doesn't read any of the original languages as far as I can tell has never taught anything. And yet as long as you've got your philosophy down then you can do real systematic theology.

That's backwards upside down and dangerous and If you want to say I'm a mean and terrible horrible person for warning about it fine I think most people realize this isn't actually a Bad thing to be to be discussing.

Someone mentioned a link. I don't. If you just go to cap Lawson's CAP LA WS o n dot wordpress .com You'll be able to pull it up there if you want to look at it. I've obviously marked it up. So I just have the text.

Okay, he says The grounding objection this remains dr. White's big subjection Molin ism. It permeates all his other objections, by the way. Zachary have you read Turretin on this? I mean, I have a stack of books on polonism that I actually Actually have you know dealt with but again, I just don't do it that way.

That's not how I teach this is there and go. Well, you know as so-and-so said.

But.

It is I think the fatal objection he says the grounding objection for those uninitiated is the Rejection of middle knowledge on the basis that there is no grounding for counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.

And dr. White's words How does God know what some creatures Sam would do in certain circumstances now? I Think I've been a little clearer than that I really do. I Am saying that I believe That God can make Statements about counterfactuals because there are certain statements in the Bible That could be understood in that way but the reason that God knows that the men of a certain city will do certain things given certain circumstances has nothing to do with Molin ism Christians understood those texts just fine long before Molina came along.

Because they all understood a basic revelation of Scripture and that is that God is our Creator. And The reason he knows me and the reason he knows what I will do is because he decreed to create me in a particular fashion and so if you're going to say no no no no That's not why God will know what you would do.

That's not that's not why God knew what the men of a certain city would do that's not why you can say certain things about you know, Sodom Gamorrah and and if they had had the light and It has nothing to do with God's decree because if it's God's decree then the whole purpose and it's the purpose of Of Molin ism it was created the philosophical system was created To avoid the Reformed the Reformation's emphasis upon the sovereignty of God.

That's why Molina came up with the way. He was obeying the command of the leader of the Jesuits to come up with a way around it. And that's what he came up with so the whole purpose is to provide a way around the sovereignty of God and provide a Place for libertarian free will.

Okay.

So.

If we we can't have God's decree Determining why he has knowledge of what I would do because that's not middle knowledge. Middle knowledge says that between that Knowledge God has of himself and that knowledge that comes from his choice to create in between are These true counterfactuals of libertarian freedom of creaturely freedom and they are not determined.

And this is what made the last the last discussion by William Lane Craig so helpful. They are not determined by the will of God. They just are true. So there are things not physical things. But things that have sufficient reality whatever terminology you want to use modals Whatever you want to go into fine have fun and joy, but they have sufficient reality to constrain the actions of God because it is those true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom that determine the feasible worlds that God can bring into existence.

He can't bring into existence a world where everyone's saved because of.

The.

Content of that middle knowledge and.

And.

You you might sit there and go why do you keep trying to simplify things. Because I want everybody to understand what we're talking about. That's why I'm not interested in impressing anybody. That's not why we do this if I was trying to impress people.

I wouldn't be wearing what I'm wearing. Okay, you know. We wouldn't have worried. We you know, how many years did we have? Ceiling tiles on the back wall here. I mean now we're trying to impress people but you know back then we were.

Long time wouldn't have done that. So He goes on and this'll this'll doesn't come out. It goes on to say. The grounding objection is from whence. Dr. White derives his card dealer argument. The card dealer argument is a rhetorical zinger that dr. White gets from conjoining the grounding objection with a bad analogy Dr. Craig made some years ago.

So whenever you don't like what Craig says, it's a bad analogy, you know. How do you know it's bad analogy it seemed to fit perfectly with what he just said in his most recent webcast. Why is it a bad analogy?

Where does that come from? He says on Twitter about to take me on task of DL better be nice to me or I'll call him a hyper Calvinist and Go run high to Bruton Parker. You can call me a hyper Calvinist all you want used to that.

But I don't think they'd even want you a Bruton Parker. So don't don't worry Zachary on. I'm just trying to just trying to get you to hear what I'm saying to.

What I?

Understand that okay. Now I don't think it's a bad analogy. I think Craig is being it just brutally honest. He said in the most recent podcast he did that the truth value of those counterfactuals is not the result of the volitional action of God.

So what is it the result of. And later I was gonna go. Well, that's a truth maker theory. The point is if it can constrain the actions of God.

A.

Christian must be concerned about it. I would just Zachary do me a favor put your philosophy books aside and Just sit down in the quiet. Or if you need to have some Bach in the background or something, that's okay.

And just read Isaiah 40 through 48. Just just read it and Ask yourself the question is this God constrained in what he does.

By.

True. Counterfactuals that he did not volitionally determine the truth value of it just is. It sounds to me like a brute fact there. It sounds to me like you're saying there are just some things that are and that's my objection.

That's my objection and I'll be honest with you Zachary. You didn't answer it here. Let's look at what you said. There are lots of moving pieces here so I'll give a summary quick knowledge. Middle knowledge.

God's knowledge of counterfactuals of freedom ie what a person would do if they were. In a certain in certain circumstances, I would just expand upon that to say that these are not determined by God. And that's the big issue grounding objection.

How does God know these counterfactuals where they come from?

Yeah.

Yeah, how does how is there anything in this universe? That is true to the level of constraining the possibilities of God's actions That are beyond his creative decree. That's the issue and That's a about the simplest way I can put what turrets and said a long time ago.

You're gonna talk about all this. I'm all of us have answered this for 500 years. Yeah, and our objections have been around for 500 years, too. Doesn't mean that the objections have actually been answered.

Dr. Craig's card analogy. God has to deal with the cards He's been dealt and that was specifically in regards to the limitations of the feasible worlds that God can actuate Based upon the content of middle knowledge.

Is it not? Dr. White's card dealer since God doesn't determine the truth of counterfactuals of freedom. They must come from something or someone else who is the card dealer. He's the one we should be worshiping.

Yeah, we need to identify What has determined because look Zachary. Biblically, would you want to debate? Honestly, would you want to debate? That biblically the reason God knows us is Because God made us.

Seriously, would anyone want to. I'm totally talking to Christians here. If you're a non-christian philosopher and you just like to play games of the epistemology and and stuff like that. Then I'm not talking to you.

If you want to be a Molinist or whatever you go do what you want. I'm talking to Christians here and You're gonna tell me That the reason God knows what I'm going to do Has nothing to do with his decree that made me.

That's not what the psalmist thought. He knew that God's intimate knowledge of him was due to the fact that he created him. He made him and He did so freely. See theology matters and it trumps philosophy mattering.

Because it determines the categories in which philosophy can be true or false from a Christian perspective. And I'm saying to you God's word says God knows me because God decreed to make me the way he did so if You're telling me That my experience in this Actuated world is not based upon God's freely Choosing to make me and put me in this position and gift me with the gifts He's given me and call me the service.

He's he's called me to give but instead it was just the best he could do. I mean, that's just the cards. He was dealt. He picked him up and he said, oh, okay. That's not my God. That's that's not Not my God.

That's not the God I see in the Bible. So Now in this divine line dr. White makes the comment where do these counterfactuals come from. Apparently that's not a question you can ask for the Molinist. What's rather bothersome is that the grounding objection has been answered?

Several different ways by several different Molinist in the past 500 years since its development. Well, that's nice. That to me is not a good thing. That's a bad thing. In other words if there was one single response that would be easier to deal with and it might speak more highly of the truth value of the theory and as a Christian if this theory is Actually relevant to my interpretation of the Bible and my understanding of God and his purposes in this world.

Then there shouldn't be 47 different ways of defending it. So dr. White clarifies that he is arguing against WLC's version of Molinism. Which I think is the main one I need to be responding to the simple reason that it's the one being most widely promoted and utilized.

I Will just focus on responses WLC has prior to the grounding objection. So what are they? All right Burden of proof. Craig posits that it's actually the grounding objector and not the Molinist whose shoulder is the burden of proof.

This is amazing to me. Just again If you go and read the article There would be a lot of folks who would say you should not even try to attempt to discuss something like this on a webcast I don't care if we can see it put it up, whatever this is this is just no, I don't believe that I I know we have we have students in the we've got a 14 year old from Canada in channel right now we've we've got people from every age group all the way up into the into the 60s and all sorts of backgrounds educationally and I think this is something that we can think through but we give you a bit of a headache night but it's certainly worth thinking through and I think most folks in the audience can immediately go.

What do you what do you mean? The grounding objector has to shoulder the burden of proof. You're the one Saying that there are true counterfactuals That exist outside of the realm of the decretive work of God but you see here's where again, I come at this and Zachary, I'm not questioning your Christianity.

But I am questioning whether you're being consistent with it. I come at this as a Christian and A Christian begins with what? Certain fundamental revelations of what the Word of God says about God and If you're gonna come along and say well.

Actually, even though the Bible never mentions anything about this. There are actually these true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom that God did not visually create. But it's your burden of proof to disprove their existence.

I go, uh-uh. You may be a high-powered philosopher, dr. Craig, but I think everybody can see that you're ducking that one as a Christian you may get away with that in your peer-reviewed journal someplace.

But you're not gonna get away with that within the Christian community. No, this is because the grounding objection is a rebutting defeater as opposed to an undercutting defeater. It must have more warrant than the Molinus assumption that there are true counterfactuals of freedom.

Craig 2001. Okay, so that's supposed to in some way Alleviate the problem that what we have here is an extra biblical philosophy being crammed into the biblical text. Making claims that the Bible never gives and from the philosophy perspective you go doesn't matter.

We're not concerned about that from the Christian perspective. We are the Christian perspective we are. If you're gonna make now again, if you just want to keep this out here in the theoretical realm and never Bring it into the theological realm.

Then you can do out there what you want, but we all know that's not what Craig does. That's not what the Molinus do so I disagree. He then provides three reasons to warrant the Molinus assumption. What's like the three reasons.

One we appear to have count to know counterfactuals and employ them in our daily lives in fact. Our plant plans are inextricably linked with such counterfactuals. An example would be if I were to pull out in traffic I would make it across the intersection and quote utterly irrelevant.

Why. Because God's knowledge as? Brother rich noted in his call Is not analogous to ours. Especially when it comes to God's knowledge of his own creation. And how many times do I think I have counterfactual knowledge?

I will make it across the intersection bang. Oh, well I was fallible. Can God be fallible? So I don't see how this is relevant. Further God's knowledge of counterfactuals expresses scripture is due to his decree.

Which is irrelevant which makes it irrelevant to a defensive Molinus because middle knowledge cannot be a part of God's decree, right? Okay number two it is plausible the law of conditional excluded middle holds for counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.

Well.

Okay, and what is that supposed to mean? Well, if you look up the link that Zachary was kind enough to provide for us there What are we talking about? Well, Alan Plantinga has argued that there are true counterfactuals of libertarian free will of the form We're curly to have been offered the bribe He would have taken it.

Some though not planting himself have attempted to help planning to argue for this conclusion on the basis of the subjunctive conditional law of excluded middle that says that for any two propositions P and Q One of were P true Q would be true and were Q true not Q would be true is true.

Therefore even if curly is not offered the bribe either he would take it or he offered it or he would not Take it where he offered it. What's the point here? The point is again from a Christian perspective.

The reason God knows whether curly is or is not going to take the bribe Which happens to be a sinful act by the way in most situations is because God in his decree Created curly to be who he is and until you show me biblically.

Mr. Christian philosopher, sir. Lots of Christian philosophers say I do philosophy under the Lordship of Christ good then you need to be an exegete first. Don't talk to me about your great Submission to Lordship of Christ when you can't execute your way out of a paper bag.

You show me Exegetically from the scriptures. Where God's knowledge of what man does is not based upon his decree to having created man. But is instead based upon this concept that you've come up with little knowledge.