300 Page Response to MERE MOLINISM

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala, and today we are covering the topic of Molinism and not just any old kind of Molinism It is mere

Molinism and we'll kind of explain what that is when I invite my guest on in just a few moments but folks

Typically like this topic. It's kind of when you talk about Calvinism, whether you love

Calvinism, whether you hate Calvinism It seems that people are always interested in the topic and I think the same thing with Molinism whether you love it

Whether you hate it folks find the topic quite fascinating. And so I'm actually really excited to To be speaking about this topic today with my guest

And so if I can kind of categorize my favorite topics to discuss it would probably have to be

Apologetic methodology you guys know I'm a presuppositionalist. I love talking about methodological issues

I love talking about the Calvinism issue. I enjoy talking about Molinism a lot and Probably creation, you know old earth young earth

Those are the fun, you know if you want to start a barroom brawl between peace loving Christians just bring up one of those topics and You sure does see some fireworks.

So but there's not gonna be any fireworks here I don't want you guys to get it twisted. I know the thumbnail says rest in peace mere

Molinism But you know, it's kind of tongue -in -cheek but but that being said my guest has actually done something quite impressive that I'm looking forward to sharing with you guys and We'll kind of jump into that topic

In detail. So before I invite my guest Colton Carlson on I want to make just a quick little a couple of things here

That I want you guys to be aware of tomorrow. I'm going to be having Eric Hernandez on to talk about apologetics and abortion so if you're interested in How to do apologetics within the context of discussions on abortion you're not going to want to miss that discussion so that's tomorrow at 9 p .m.

Eastern. I also am going to be having on Luke Luke Pearson Who is the pastor is a pastor at Apologia Church over there in?

Arizona that is the it's a church where James White goes and there's a pastor Jeff Durbin Durbin is over there

We're going to be talking about apologetics and the local church that's going to be On June 9th at 9 p .m.

Eastern. So looking forward to that. Also, I am Holding my online apologetics course that the classes are going to start on June 7th

So if folks are interested in kind of doing a five -week kind of structured Course on presuppositional apologetics presupp you that's what it's called folks can actually sign up right now on revealed apologetics calm

And so that sign up period is going to be open from now all the way up until on June 7th So if you're interested in that, that is a great way to support revealed apologetics

It takes a lot of work to prepare for a lot of these things. And so Financial support is very very helpful.

So I do appreciate it however Whether it's donating through the donate page on the website or signing up for a course all those things are super super Helpful and it's greatly appreciated.

Well without all it with all of those things out of the way We have a nice little crowd here without further ado.

I would like to introduce my guest Colton Carlson. How are you doing, man? doing fantastic So privileged and honored to be here so well, thank you for for that.

I'm it's not that big of a deal but hey, man That's right, so I've allowed you to be graced by my presence

All right Well, why don't you tell folks a little bit about who you are and then we'll kind of get into what

I found quite fascinating is this I guess this Paper that started out kind of like a paper but kind of turned into a book on the topic that we're gonna be discussing

So why don't you share with folks who you are before we get into all that? Yeah, sure. So Colton Carlson, I'm a mathematics and philosophy teacher at Mission Heights Preparatory High School.

I teach actually in Casa Grande, Arizona, which is around like 30 minutes or so south of Phoenix I've actually been to death

Jeff Germans Church before I met both him and Luke great great people their apologetics

Ministry on Mormonism and Latter -day Saints beautiful. I've learned so many things from them

So yeah, so I'm kind of in that same area. I have a two degrees so Because I'm gonna say why

I have two degrees and a bit but my two degrees secondary mathematics education and then also theology and Bible so philosophy what

I teach at my charter school is Like an elective so high school philosophy. I teach them kind of like topical scenarios

Ethical dilemmas and teach them a bit about logic and big stuff about philosophy.

So yeah, my interests include this So we have similar interests. I'm mainly focused more of on the free will and responsibility side and compatibilism determinism

Calvinism Yeah, just for it to give folks a heads up if you're interested in this whole sort of debate if you guys know a while back

Tim Stratton debated James White on the topic of is Molanism biblical and I think

Colton and Tyler Vela did an excellent job with a three -part Review of the debate totally not boring

It's fun because they have good chemistry and as they're kind of interacting with each other but it's also just a really great resource to kind of unpack how one might approach this topic and Analyze some of the arguments that that Tim puts forth and of course, this is nothing

Tim I don't want to waste too much time saying this because I know every I think we always caveat caveat These sorts of discussion with this but we think that Tim is a great guy.

We just think he's wrong Is on this specific topic so so that's all so there's there's no

I know he'll probably watch this but you know He will he will

Trust me. He'll be coming out with a 10 part response video. No, I'm just kidding. Well, he might well, you never know so If God actualizes a world in which he sees it and that's that's what he wants to do.

It'll it'll happen So I'll give him glory. So that's right. Amen So what what caught my attention

Colton was that you intended to interact with Tim Stratton's work just kind of briefly

You know, maybe I'll write an article or something like that Maybe a blog post and then like a link a snap turn around three times and now you've written a 300 page

Interaction with what Tim Stratton calls mere Molin ism. My question to you is what the heck bro?

There's a couple of reasons why so I did start off like After his book came out

Which I was really excited for but it's just so lackluster and just dull

And I actually have it right here. I'm looking at it, but I went to town on the book I don't know if you can kind of see some parts, but I did

Do a lot of highlighting in the book. So I did read it Let's get a close -up on it.

I read a lot of your book Yes Those of you who don't like writing shame on you you should write and But I did read it.

I probably read it close to five times at least the philosophy and theology sections Sure, basically,

I was so disappointed with it I was going to do like a 20 page because I had a lot of personal correspondence to Stratton Through like Facebook groups and so forth

So I want to do like a 20 page kind of I don't know Review of the book like review like I wanted to review it and then being on came out with his review

I'm like, oh, I'm done. I Don't need to do it at all. He came out with it on January 1st, 2020.

I was like, this is great This is basically everything I wanted to say. It's short concise I mean, he told everyone to pack a lunch when he sent it out and I packed a lunch and And Two months later

Stratton because we all knew he was going to I was waiting. Sure. He posted a review

I'm sorry a rejoinder of beyond 50 pages in response And again, so lackluster so disappointing with the response

I Believe Stratton said one time to be gone. He was unimpressed with being yon's

Negative Argumentation against the consequence argument. Well, I'm gonna return the favor I was really unimpressed with strands defenses of being on and so to me

I was like Well, then I have to do something and that's when I started meeting with some other fellow molinus and Incompatibilists, so not just Calvinist, but true incompatible us who had similar views on strands work

And we started kind of talking and we started developing this kind of friendship and one thing led to the other

I started writing 20 pages became 50 100 150 300

Yeah, 300 like And I kept telling her how long it was and she kept her mouth kept dropping.

What what what? So it's kind of an instant joke, but Yeah, so I call it brief

I know if you're the the title is called a brief philosophical and dialectical inquiry on mere molinus

Um, they can paddle this reply. So on my preface I actually if you go to the link and go to academia and download it you read my preface

I actually explain all this but I keep the word brief in the title kind of for like hilarious sentimental reasons

But also I think I do it because I kind of do as a tribute to have been in wagons so been in at wagons famous work an essay on free will where he

Exposits his consequence argument and when you read it, you're like, this is no essay

This is a whole book and you're going to town and arguing for incompatibilism

And so I'm kind of like as a tribute to him I kept the word brief in there and I thought it was hilarious and cheeky.

So that's awesome now a quick question so you you described Stratton's book or I think both his book and his response to being young as lackluster now

Without getting into the specifics because you're kind of you're gonna kind of go into that and what's in what sense?

Would you describe his both his book and his response as being lackluster? What do you mean by that? And why

I'll give one example, I guess so in personal correspondence with Stratton after his 13 plus hour responses to being on in 2020 where you were a part of I Watched all those videos.

So when you're interviewing beyond and their responses back with flowers Hunter and him himself and then also his other reply with Tim Fox afterwards

Sure, I watched every single one took detail notes on every single one and I was

Talking to Stratton somehow on Facebook and he was basically saying hey just wait for my book like stay tuned

I'm gonna explain a lot of this. I'm like, okay, like you make a good case not convinced But I really wanted to look at your book because your articles are kind of like for the layman and they're they not they don't

Go in detail. So I want the book because I'm expecting it to go into detail Sure, and there's some things he's not gonna remember but I remember there's some things in personal correspondence

That's like does he deal with do you deal with guidance control or Fisher Revisa's? Contemporary compatibilism and he kind of alluded to me at least to the fact that yes

Anyone who's familiar with the literature will know that I allude to that and I'm like, oh great I don't want an incompatible.

It's good reply that has to do with moanism and this would be great when I got the book I ordered it as soon as I had the money or as soon as my wife allowed and then

I read it in like I think two weeks or so and that's why I was so lackluster because None of what he promised actually cashed out for me

It was virtually to me a ripoff of his blogs it was and being on points this out and nauseam in his own review that a lot of it was just his blogs just regurgitated

Some sections like the historical section didn't make any sense Why do you need that historical section in there?

And then he never explained why we need the categorical ability to do otherwise, which

I'm going to explain in a bit So there these are some like to me like some issues that I wanted resolved that I felt like maybe my hopes are too high

I don't know, but he did hype it up a lot. You know that that's fair He hyped it up so much that I was just expecting too much.

I don't know But that's why I consider it lackluster and then yes, his rejoinders are better Yes, I'll admit that his rejoinder to being on is a little bit better, but it still doesn't it doesn't have the philosophical philosophical umph that And that's that's a problem

And I would say too that the criticism is is of what Stratton has put out is not simply coming from other

Calvinists It's coming from other modernists as well. So I think that's important to keep in mind

So and I think charity is is in place here. I appreciate how when

Tim said hey wait for my response your attitude of like All right great because you guys you we know this that when we're talking about some of these issues it takes a lot to unpack and to kind of just get it all out so Charitable even after watching this and Tim says hey, you know,

I want to have an opportunity to address that like hey This is a this is an active You know topic we're willing to interact and kind of take the time to kind of plow through the stuff

And so, you know responses are welcome. That's how we that's how we learn so I do I do appreciate that attitude that you had and Hopefully the the the dialogue if we can say not that we're talking in the behind the scenes

But hopefully that debate can kind of have a healthy continuation as we continue to move towards Hopefully closer to the truth.

So all right. Well, okay So you wrote this 300 page monster, which by the way, a lot of people appreciated to have some comments here

Someone said thank you for making it available on the internet. Yes. Thank you very much It's the worst when someone writes something and then you have to like go through a paywall and you're like I'm too broke to pay for an article.

Come on, man. So I appreciate that Yeah, it's wonderful So what was your overall aim and the methodology that you took to kind of begin to unpack?

Where you wanted to go with respect to interacting with with Tim's work here concerning your Molan ism

Yeah, I think you said it perfectly. It was dialectical and conversational hence the title

So I wanted it to be more of a philosophical approach a compatible philosophical approach to Molan ism and his overall response

But I also wanted to be conversational. So there's actually some parts in some sections, which

I May use less than professional Philosophical language because I wanted it to be approachable in that sense

I wanted it to almost seem like a dialogue where hey, he's saying something. I'm responding to it

What's the next thing? He says this I'm responding to it And here's how maybe beyond said or some other philosopher or theologian said this

How does that incorporate with Stratton's overall Molan istic framework? Here's how and then we move on so I kind of wanted to be that Also, I wanted it to be a philosophical defense for compatibilism and I'm gonna highlight that word there defense

Mm -hmm is not an argument for compatibilism and I know Stratton has already confused negative and positive argumentation with being on himself

You interviewed being on about that when their whole con consequence argument controversy and beyonds like what that has nothing to do with the consequence argument so I Want to highlight that part if you're gonna read this 300 pages don't see as where's the argument for compatibilism?

It it's not there I will assume compatibilism all the way throughout the whole the whole book

I'll assume determinism all the way throughout the whole book. I'm on the defensive mode

Which means who's in the offensive mode? Stratton He's the one who published the book full of arguments

I'm going to look at those arguments and be defensive being on did the same when he did his review Review of Mere monism, so I will pretty much assume something very similar a similar methodology and so I do allude to other arguments for compatibilism such as Beyonds or be valence which will kind of get to a little bit

Anderson's kind of arguments and definitional stuff or guidance control that will be in volume two, but Yeah, and so this is a defense not an argument.

Sure That's I think that's important to keep in mind. That's a good a good point there just as a heads -up folks

If you if you're familiar, I think Tim has put something out indicating that he's coming out with another edition to his

Book, what's the name of the book again? It's it. I forgot the name of the book It's human freedom divine foreknowledge and mere monism, and he's just gonna call it second edition.

I'm pretty sure Subtitles, okay. Yeah, so so again, so if he addresses everything that you're gonna be talking about here in there

That'd be great. Yeah, so that's Someone says hey, man, if you're a fan of Tim's working like wait a minute, man

You got to wait for the second edition. Like that's cool. Like we're down for the second edition. That's The issue is the second edition is not out yet.

So right, right all right, so Let's move down to If I we have our outline here, that's kind of the introductory stuff that's out of the way here

We have on the outline libertarianism Why don't you define some terms for us and then kind of jump into?

How this relates to the overall approach that you've taken to interact with Tim? Yeah, so libertarianism is a simple thesis libertarianism is just the thesis of incompatibilism and free will some of the time so that what that means is

Incompatibilism must be true. So you can't be determined and free at the same time. Otherwise, that would be compatibilism

So that needs to be true and also a necessary condition for libertarianism

Is that humans need to possess some sort of freedom some of the time it doesn't need to be all the time

It doesn't need to be more times than not. It just means some of the time So it could be one time in their life or it could be 50 times in their life.

It doesn't really matter It just needs to have some sort of freedom. Hmm So that's the basic definition and so in section two point one point one

Specifically and I am gonna throw page numbers out and I hope that's okay for the audience. So much all along and but page 14

Stratton has this claim of Libertarian compatibilism and he's often said that before Binyan has criticized him in his own review about it

But I I agree like so for instance strand says this in 161 page 161 of his book.

He says Indeed given the above definitions of libertarianism. So all the definitions he kind of describes in this book

But by the way, he says his limited libertarian freedom, which we're gonna get into a bit.

It's the ability to do Something compatible with your nature so a consistent or compatible with your nature, so it's not against your nature

It's just compatible with it. So we're gonna see what that means. So in those definitions and everything he's explained

Stratton writes both compatibilism and libertarianism Might affirm that some form of libertarian freedom at least occasionally corresponds to reality

Issue is that's not true or at least not in the way that He's writing it he needs to clarify a whole lot in order for that to to work

So for instance, I agree with being on and being on rights libertarianism entails and compatibilism.

Like I said Therefore compatibilist cannot ever affirm that anyone has ever had or ever will have libertarian freedom

So that would require incompatibilism Compatibilism would be false

So this is the first kind of blunder and I'm not the only one to critique him on it So I don't want to spend too much time on but there is

I want to be charitable There are some in the literature and I do have a footnote footnote 20 on paid for my my reply footnote 20 on page 14 there are some that respond and call themselves or have called their view libertarian

Compatibilism so and these are good philosophers like Kadri villain Christian list even

Mealy has Somewhat said hey, they can affirm similar things But I want to clarify this just because they can affirm similar things that yeah libertarianism

Can affirm something about someone's nature and they can't do other other than what their nature allows and just because compatibilism has that same

Definition doesn't mean that you can just combine the two views and say libertarian compatibilism.

Sure Stratton has recently already Conceded this much as a video in response to Paul Minata Like literally like recent like within the month.

So I watched that video. I was like, yeah Yeah, a little pom -poms.

Yeah You're getting it but yeah So he wants to say that I can like I affirm some freedoms that are compatible with Determinism and some freedoms are not but the freedom that's necessary for libertarianism or for rational responsibility is what he calls it

He says is not compatible with determinism and I would say great then by definition

You're an incompatibilist, but then he won't go further or at least he did want to go further and say no

I'm still can be a compatibilist in some sense and incompatible some other senses and I'm saying It's just not helpful.

Like it's just not helpful. Obviously. I'm an atheist with regards to Zeus So am

I gonna go around saying I'm a Christian atheist? That makes no sense, right?

Like you're not gonna say that in the same way You're not gonna go around saying I'm a libertarian compatibilist because it's just it's just not helpful now

He may think he's being helpful to the layman He's actually not and the reason why he's not is because those definitions

Well, I'm explaining to to you and everyone else our standard in the layman Freewill philosophy books like for instance like Keynes Robert Keynes Contemporary introduction to philosophy art to freewill philosophy back in like 2005.

He had like a small book on it He says the same thing I'm saying So it doesn't really make sense for him to use these kind of words and so that's my first critique in that section

So your critique so if I can just summarize so your critique of Stratton is his use or misuse or?

Irresponsible use or clumsily clumsy use of standard definitions, which kind of muddles the whole discussion.

It is. Yeah Yes, that's precisely it and I think it's even all the more ironic when he thinks that people like us

I'm gonna just say Calvinist or whatever or compatibilist Muddy the definitions or muddy the waters.

No, that's actually ironic because you're the one doing it and I would stand by that statement and Since he's conceded it recently at the end of his 30 -minute video to Palma nada

I Would take that he agrees with me and so he's gonna stop doing this libertarian compatibilism and he's just gonna say

Yep, I'm an incompatible. I'm a flaming Incompatible is free thinking is what he would call himself and Leave it at that and I would be like, thank you.

Amen. We can move on because definitions are you know Important so so okay.

So These definitions with respect to how he defines libertarianism. Have you heard of the phrase if you heard of the term soft libertarianism?

Yeah, so I expand a little bit about it actually in that same footnote footnote 20, I believe

I do say that That is what it is soft soft libertarianism would just affirm what he wants to affirm

So, why does he not just use the word soft libertarian? He does in his book in his chapter 12 he briefly mentioned soft libertarianism, but the issue is

Just say that don't keep bouncing around with these. I'm a libertarian compatibilist or whatever

Just say you're soft libertarian. Everyone knows what you mean call good Yeah, I've heard of soft libertarianism from Kirk McGregor when

I was a Molinist and I was part of the Molinist Facebook group where I used to interact with dr.

McGregor and Jonathan Thompson and Tim that's where I heard soft libertarianism for the first time and it sounded very similar to compatibilism if to the untrained ear sounds very similar, can you briefly kind of Tell us the difference between compatibilism and soft libertarianism

Yeah, so strand does a little bit, but I think he flubs Is that a word fub up?

Hey, it's the internet we can make up whatever we want Humbles I guess the definition of compatibilism, but we'll get to that later but really the distinguishing factor between soft libertarianism and compatibilism is that Soft libertarianism is still by definition

Incompatible s so the types of abilities that ground or our are necessary for responsibility are just different So the ability for soft libertarianism

That's necessary for rational responsibility or moral responsibility is going to be the categorical

So they still want to say that you categorically could do this or that a b c d or not a not be not see whatever

That is the categorical no matter what kind of view of libertarian you have no matter how minimalist it is

No matter how mere it is that must be a condition And so I actually take great pains in this libertarian section the first section here to to make that prevalent

I try to argue the with regards to libertarianism and indeterminism that if indeterminism is something that's entailed by libertarianism

Indeterminism means more than one future. So what does that mean? It means alternative possibilities.

Well, what does that mean? It means you have access to alternative possibilities. What does that mean? Access is the categorical access to be able to actualize this

Avenue that Avenue that Avenue that Avenue Compatibilism concedes none of that.

That's the main difference. I would say It's just the type of abilities and then obviously the former soft libertarianism is incompatible

So, all right, that makes sense just to the heads up here some people I see some in the comments someone says you should interview

Dr. Kirk McGregor. Well, actually actually actually before my channel got viewers

But I'm not I mean, I I don't know where I am in terms of subscribers now But when I was much smaller once upon a time,

I actually did interview Kirk McGregor twice and get this

Okay, when I was a Molinist right or when I was struggling with the issue between Molinism and Calvinism I actually moderated a debate slash discussion

Between Kirk McGregor and Matt slick of karm So if folks are interested if you just look up Kirk McGregor verse

Matt slick It is an interesting discussion to say the least if I can just it's very interesting discussion

I think in my personal opinion, that's like a friend of mine. I happen to think that Kirk McGregor did an excellent job in that discussion

However, I obviously ultimately don't agree with him at the end. But if you want to hear kind of a good Defense or answering various objections to Molinism.

That's a great video. So it's not on my channel here on revealed apologetics It was kind of before I got revealed apologetic started, but it's there on the internet

So folks could actually check that out if you if you search. All right, so Colton Oh one more thing for folks who are listening

We got a nice a nice crowd here If you have a question preface your question with question and like we normally do at the back end of the show

We'll see if we could address as many as possible if Colton is up to it. Sorry. I didn't say that beforehand

All right, is that okay? Okay All right. So what about determinism?

What is determinism and does is this another category that Tim that you find

Tim kind of Messes up and confuses. How do you think Tim approaches his own?

You know, how do you think or how well rather do you think Tim understands determinism? Does he mess up on the definitions there?

What's going on there? So there's a Not really I don't and I want to say like he doesn't really mess up libertarianism because obviously it's his view, right?

I just don't think he uses standard definitions and he ought to especially if he wants to dance in the philosophical arena

And so you ought to use this definitions already in the arena And if you disagree with those definitions, you ought to give a really good reason why and I don't find any of Tim's reasons

It's why he defends why defines libertarianism the way he does Good enough reasons, although because it's his view.

I'll give him it and I'll show Internally why I think his limited libertarian freedom is actually false later, but going back to determinism

No, and yes, he defined he defines it as exhaustive divine determinism which to me is a complete redundancy now,

I I understand he has tons of tons of different articles and stuff why

Exhaustive or ed exhaustive defined determinism. It isn't redundant and I just I kind of politely kind of scoff at those because and the reason is it's because it does it he doesn't

Understand again the standard definitions if something is determined That means that some things can be in like let's just say

I'm determined to do this That doesn't mean all things are determined for sure. It just means that thing is determined.

Well, then if something is determined that non -exhaustively Determined but that doesn't mean that's non -exhaustive

Determinism. Okay, isn't is what grants it to all things? I have yet to see any standard philosophical work from laymen to professionals say that oh, yeah for sure

There's a thing called non -exhaustive determinism now I understand it's his own definition and he wants to try to argue it

But he's doing a terrible job and I mean that with all love and respect So what I mean is what he should just say is some things can be determined and some things are not determined Great.

It's all you need to say. Mm -hmm. Don't need to say That non -exhaustive determinism and exhaustive determinism is existing.

He wants to claim rationality Alternative possibilities for rationality because he is a leeway

Incompatible s which just means he affirms alternative possibilities with regards to the mental deliberations

That's fine, so those can't be determined, okay, but he could concede that everything else could be determined I don't know how that's possible and I would expect him to show me exactly how that's possible.

But It technically is coherent in some sense but that's all you need to say that some things can be determined some things are not determined and you don't need to use this exhaustive

Non -exhaustive determinism, so I actually developed this all the way throughout my reply, but I call it the mere

Molinus dilemma Okay, very. Oh so real quick before you get into the mere

Molinus dilemma because I thought that's gonna be part of the I mean a Thumbnail says rest in peace mere Molinus.

Um, so now you're bringing up that we're getting to kind of the the meat here so so you would take issue with Would you would you agree with being young being young's criticism of Stratton that the term

Edd is just an unnecessary redundancy Yeah, so I pretty much agree with everything being on has to say

We have the same Calvinistic background I think you're a little bit more towards Baptist I'm Presbyterian but whatever

The Geology in the Westminster and everything. Yeah, we're gonna affirm exactly and I would say the same thing here

It's a redundancy. Sure. So anything being on says about 10 10

Stratton's Definitions and how he goes about Determinism, I would I would say the same

But if that answers your question, yeah, no, that's fine. That's fine All right, so let's let's let's get into the into the rest in peace mere

Molinus. It is the dilemma What's the dilemma for the mere Molinus? So I explained this throughout most of my chunks so I started in this section on the terminism, which is 2 .2

and then I kind of bring it up throughout so in my Frankfurt style section and also

I'm a little bit in the historical section because Obviously, he's a mere Molinus and this is the dilemma.

So here's what I write kind of informally but either the agent While being determined unto salvation is a not more rationally responsible

So either the agent while being determined on just unto salvation is either a not rationally responsible or B He is rationally responsible if horn a that he's not rationally responsible

Then Tim's ed Definition to me is a useless redundancy and the distinction between exhaustive and non -exhaustive would be proven superfluous

Incompatibilism would obtain and strands project amending mere Molinus and with reformed theology would just be

Confused quizzical. Okay. I call that the Calvinist horn stride would be proving that mere

Molinus Um, if he affirmed that horn that the agent is not rationally responsible when he's determined to salvation

Okay, if he accepts that horn Stratton would be proving that mere Molinus is not compatible with tulip

Calvinist soteriology Contrary to his project Trans whole project is try to harmonize because he came from a reformed school.

So he's trying to harmonize mere Molinus. Um with Tulip, so he's trying to say you could be a tulip earth like great

Coco he uses as a classic example all the time and yet still technically be a

Molinus and I say and No Because is great Coco gonna accept the fact that he's not rationally or even morally responsible for salvation most

Calvinist want to say that they are but here's the problem and here's horn be if Stratton concedes that they are rationally responsible during their deliberation

While also being determined to salvation Then he gives up his free -thinking argument

He's this free -thinking argument has to say that you cannot be determined and Deliberating at the same time.

In other words, you cannot be rationally responsible and yet be determined at the same time

You cannot that's what the free -thinking argument says sure Stratton would give up his argument and therefore leave in compatibilism defenseless.

Here's the issue He's not gonna do that. His whole ministries is called free -thinking ministries

So he's not gonna fall on horn be he's gonna fall on horn a but if he does that then he just throws his

Calvinist friends underneath the bus like Greg Coco and says, oh, yeah, you are determined the I and irresistible grace

Yeah, that I determines your salvation your deliberation was not free not rationally responsible

But here's the I don't see any Calvinist worth their salt actually accepting that sure

So he want his whole project to me mending them together just does not work And if that's the case, then what's the purpose of mere and mere monism?

He wants to say mere monism because it men's something the most modest form of monism together with a robust Soteriology like Calvinism per se

But if those don't even go then what's the what's the reason for the caveat on or the clarifier really on mere?

Hmm virtually no reason and if that's the case then his monism is just like every other monism sure

That's the case. Then why write a book on monism? When it's not really different than all the other monism

Flavors that are out there. Sure, right? And so this I think this dilemma is pretty good to me

And I'm interested in seeing if people want to ask questions about it, too But I'm interested in seeing what strand has to say about it again

I'll kind of repeat it and summarize there's the Calvinist horn and three thinking horn if he wants to say that people can be determined in matters

Above is what Greg Greg Kirk McGregor wants to say so people can be determined in matters above so in Salvation but not be determined in matters below so in everyday like I choose red socks or blue socks kind of thing if Tim Stratton and Kirk McGregor want to say that and Give a little wiggle room for their

Their libertarian freedom. I think that you have to say that that person that agent

While being irresistibly drawn while deliberating salvation yet. It's a determined salvation

They are either rationally responsible or they are not They are not

Then you just threw your Calvinist friends underneath the bus I don't see any Calvinist accepting that no if they are you just gave away your whole free -thinking argument compatibilism is the best option

Yeah, but Colton you were If determinism is true, yeah, so okay, so we won't address this now

But maybe you can because I know there's there are people who are listening to be like, yeah, but you know But you're just a determinist. It doesn't matter

You know, maybe a latent flowers will come and make a 10 -hour response video to this or something. I'm just kidding.

I'm just kidding When someone says but you were determined to say everything you're saying

As a Calvinist, does that make you shake in your boots or uncomfortable in any way shape or form?

Is that is that somewhat a response that Calvinist really need to come to grips with no so if he wants if and I I think it's

I Think it's kind of comical and I'm saying this with love and respect But I think it's comical that that is even a response.

The reason why I say it's comical is because no professional incompatible as philosopher ever argues that You would think after the moon like the millennia or specifically after the last 50 years since free will literature has been booming

You would think that hmm an incompatible philosopher would say yes, but they can't Deliberate because even their deliberations are determined.

Aha That's just the reason why they don't don't do that is because it's question begging. It's assuming

Incompatible ism from the very beginning which is what Tim Stratton and company need to prove his book

He's an incompatible us prove it to me and you can't do it without already assuming you're incompatible as presuppositions

Sure thing that you can't deliberate what I'm doing right now. I'm deliberating I'm talking yet not be determined at the same time in the literature.

It's called deliberation incompatible ism Kant was a famous run one Thomas Reid was a famous one and there are plethora of compatibilists and Incompatible us like jerk

Paragon whose hard borders on hard determinism hard incompatible ism Okay Who are deliberation compatibles who ad nauseam has defended the fact that you can deliberate and be

Determined at the same time Stratton touches none of that are none of those arguments.

I don't mean Do you think he's aware of those arguments or does you think purposely?

Purposely kind of like I don't even want to say that. I mean, I mean I want to it is anything that because He should be aware of these arguments and all these other positions that it's odd that there's no direct interaction in any meaningful way

Yes, or no. So first off I don't necessarily I'm not surprised kind of I am surprised

But I'm not necessarily surprised that there's no interaction there and here's why The preface of his study guide to mere monism

He says that he wrote the book mere monism for the layman for the church people. Okay, that's the case

He's not gonna use a lot of objections. He's not gonna go into deep literature on the philosophy about it and That makes sense.

But then again It doesn't make sense because his pupil is his almost like predecessor

William Lane Craig who he studied under Had a book called the only wise God who was made for laymen and church people and that book had many objections

That's for total chapters if I recall on objections detailed philosophy defending his view against objections so either

Stratton knew about it, but purposely didn't put them in his book because maybe a dissertation Requirements that he needed to meet which make sense or he he just didn't know about them

But if I go back to the first one if he didn't know about them But didn't put them in his book when he published the book after he did the dissertation and got his

PhD Why didn't he just gut out some? Unnecessary parts like the historical section put the objections in Yeah, like it would have done nothing like his his mere

Molinus twin pillar libertarian freedom and middle knowledge is what mere Mere Molin is a really says those twin pillars those two things could have easily just been defended actually

I would say arguably defended better Because then you would see oh here objections.

Here's my defense against these objections instead of going on a hundred and some forty pages

I think on Historical tangents that virtually do nothing to his overall project and which he's actually conceding

John Calvin recently Calvin back No sense

Calvin from us. He made that bit. I'm like we got Calvin back. All right Yes, so I think he does know about them and I know

I've talked to him personally about them before in personal correspondence So my hope is in the second edition.

He actually discusses jerk Perry boom Caruso and Elkins Arturo These are all people who?

Argued for deliberation compatibilism Sure who say you can deliberate and still be compact and that still is compatible with being determined completely

Exhaustively, okay, so Here's the hoping I hope he actually touches some of that literature

Okay, so if just so to briefly summarize the mere Molin dilemma is in a very casual

Summary, what's the dilemma so people can kind of have this crystallized image of what you're getting at here?

The dilemma is just two horns. I call it the Calvinistic horn and the free -thinking horn He either throws his

Calvinist friends underneath the bus by saying Calvinist when they're being determined to salvation through the eye and to the irresistible grace if He says that they're not rationally responsible because they can't deliberate about salvation and still be determined to salvation at the same time

He throws them underneath the bus thus breaking his project of mere Molin isn't being compatible with Reform theology

Second horn is the free -thinking horn. He says yeah, they are rationally responsible. Actually, you can be determined under salvation deliberate and still be

Not as all compatible with your freedom and rational responsibility. Well, then you just gave up your free -thinking argument.

Thanks for the win I'll take compatibilism and be on my day All right, well

I have here on our outline Compatibilism and it says here point one does compatibilism entail determinism

Why don't you unpack that for us? That's kind of the next point here So this is actually a big one.

So I kind of want to camp out here a bit In his book he have said in his philosophical section that for his purposes here in his book

I think it's page 161 I believe that Could be wrong, but he says that I will make compatibilism entail determinism

And I'm just like What? And I'm just I'm shocked that he would actually say something like that And the reason why

I'm shocked is because by definition compatibilism doesn't entail determinism even in compatibilist like Jerry Walls Knows this very well

Other incompatible us like Kevin Tempe knows this very very well. He says it in the introductory first few pages of his book

Free will Kevin Tempe says that so it's it's a pretty important one to say that Oh, yeah, this is what's gonna happen and compatibilism entails determinism when virtually no

Professional philosopher agrees with you that that's kind of concerning To me that's very very concerning now.

Let's make some distinctions. First of all Actually, let me let me go back for instance some professional philosophers that will just outright deny the claim is a compatibilist

Michael McKenna and Dirk Paraboom So I they say this in their free will Introduction book on page 30 and I have this quoted in the footnotes on page 81

So they say the definition of compatibilism quoting the definition compatibilism does not commit to the truth of determinism

Wow, would you look at that? They go on and say it tells us that if determinism were true

It's truth would not entail that no person ever acts freely another compatibilist philosopher

Carolina Sartario says this compatibilism doesn't say that determinism is true

But only that it wouldn't undermine our free will if it were true She continues and says thus according to compatibilism, even if we may

Not know whether or not determinism holds we needn't worry about it being true because it's not a threat to our free will

Calvinist can be can a Calvinist be a compatibilist but but be completely silent as to how

They're compatible. So yeah, so that's saying that you're compatibilist doesn't commit you to a metaphysical picture of like Causal determinism or which is often voiced because I remember

I had I had a conversation with Tim Stratton a while back and he Said that if I if I were a Calvinist, I would be a

Mysterian Calvinist I would say that yeah, these things are compatible, but I have no idea how they work out

Yeah What's wrong? What's wrong with that? I actually I'm glad you brought that up.

I do explain that in the determinism section I contrast different types of models of determinism.

So Mysterian Calvinism and industrious Calvinism that comes from the

Leave it. It's coined by Greg wealthy But he coins those words and he kind of in most of his works

He sides with Mysterian Calvinism, though. He does believe there is a robust model like guidance control and I'm an

Industrious Calvinist meaning there's no Mysterian mysterious thing about it

We know how it works called guidance control And so people you've interviewed

Michael Patrick Preciado. He has integrated guidance control with robust reform theology

I love I love Michael. Michael is literally a Mexican version of Guillaume with better English What did you say

I'll just ask Michael and he'll explain it Yeah, I think Preciado Michael is great.

He's a fantastic individual. His book is awesome So you should look him up a reform view of freedom is what that book is called.

But anyways, yeah He argues for an industrious model. So going back to your question Should a

Calvinist have an industrious model or not? There's different kinds of terminology here.

So another Calvinist have suggested the terminology simple Compatibilism which is basically simple compatibilism is just like what

I just said the thesis of compatibilism not affirming determinism, okay, and then substantive compatibilism which is the thesis of compatibilism plus the thesis of determinism and He argues for that Calvinist should be a soft determinist or that substantive compatibilist, so we should say compatibilism plus Determinism, okay,

I agree Does that mean by definition? compatibilism entails determinism

No It does not at best. What it means is by application compatibilism entails determinism not by definition and And when strident in this book says, oh,

I just by definition it's gonna mean this I'm like What now being on is so cute and he actually concedes the entailment

And so I interact with being on Concession to Stratton in his own review.

So being on in his own review says, you know, I'm okay with that I I can see that compatibilism could entail determinism and then he's like, well we should see an argument no matter what

I Agree. However, I think being on should gave too much ground up And the reason why

I think he did is because again we need to make the distinction between application and definition

I don't think by definition Compatibilism could ever entail determinism. It just doesn't make sense or or when incompatible is often say well compatibilism is just determinism with a cherry on top or with frosting and actually

Stratton himself has had many articles like that in his free thinking ministries page

Yeah, and I think that's just ridiculous. No, it's not Substantive compatibilist could be but what they're getting at when an incompatible says that is something like Compatibilism by definition entails hard determinism.

That's what they're thinking in their mind Sure, the problem with that is hard determinism entails incompatibilism.

So you're literally saying Compatibilism entails hard determinism which entails incompatible in which by definition hypothetical syllogism you have incompatibilism

Makes no sense. So like that cheeky argument from layman incompatible.

It's just don't work That's why you don't see in the professional field. So should the Calvinist be a determinist?

I think so based on the Westminster, but does that mean that their determinism is entailed by compatibilism?

No, I think the compatibilism just comes along for the ride and the determinism comes along for the ride

I think they're two independent theses and that they kind of are wed together in the Calvinist tradition and Reformed Orthodox Theology and and they're they can be separated.

So we shouldn't we shouldn't make these unnecessary entailments Sure. Sure. Now, I just want to put this up on the screen here.

So Phil bear Or says Eli and Colton you should read

Proverbs 1817 and explain why you wouldn't have Tim on the show with you right now I'm gonna read Proverbs 1817

And it says the one who states his case first seems right until the other comes and examines him

Yes, and amen what you're doing here and what you wrote in your 300 page book is

Literally the example of Tim making a statement first through his book and you responding

So that's the first point number two Colton can be my witness here in public.

Did I not invite Tim Stratton to be on here right now with us today? Yes, I did.

That's right when I had Guillaume Bignon on I Actually invited Tim to come on as a matter of fact

Tim was present in the comments during the live stream in Which he was interacting with Guillaume from the comments and he actually private messaged me an argument

That he wanted me to present. I wanted to make sure Tim was being properly represented So it was

Tim's choice not to come on every time I've invited him actually invited him multiple times now granted the reasons for him not wanting to come on were his own reasons

He's he's doing a lot of you know editing and things. He's working. I get that The same thing with me.

It's get busy. I get it, but I have never Critiqued Tim without inviting him to come on for some kind of moderated discussion or debate with with another guest

So so yes, we both would hold to Proverbs 18 17, and we are not guilty of not

Adhering to that so he has been invited Hopefully in the future He can come on and have a moderated discussion

And the reason why I don't have it people have asked me why don't I have it with him? This is not my area of expertise.

This is my area of interest I love talking about this topic and I've I've learned a lot from Guillaume from Colton from Tyler Vela and others

Paul Manada But it's not an issue that I would feel that I would be a legitimate

You know interlocutor and question and point I like to listen and ask the questions and navigate kind of the flow of the conversation

So that's why I don't know But I've invited him multiple times and he's still welcome to come back on if he wanted to interact with someone and kind of take

These things head -on. So just wanted to throw that out there I also want to throw out that I've personally emailed him and messaged him before Back a year ago to try to actually just have a video discussion not even recorded

Just to call him and ask him about some of this stuff. Yeah, he's never responded

Honestly, and I have the emails and the private messages to back it up So right now

Tim has always been willing to to talk to me about it on the phone He's been you know, like see you too much.

He likes you more than me Well, I mean, you know, he's like hey anytime you want to talk so I've never had that experience with him

But again for my own purposes because I like to see this the views side -by -side and interact

It's kind of helpful for me to learn I've always invited him to come on and interact with someone because that helps me and I think it helps other people kind of Pinpoint the specific areas of either strength or weakness.

So Oh, yeah, so and again, I get it like maybe Tim doesn't feel called to pursue debate and these sorts of and that's fine

That's fine, too But it's not as though he hasn't been invited and if he's unable to come on that doesn't mean we don't get to talk about These issues nonetheless because he has published material

So that's free game, especially when Tim and I mean this respectfully and you know this Colton Tim has often attacked

Calvinism in general So and I don't mean that in a pejorative sense, I mean I've attacked Molin ism

You know, I get it. But this is fair game in terms of taking initiative and saying hey, you know

Someone wrote this and let's talk about it. Let's critique it. So there's no, you know Underhanded unfair things going on here.

Anyone's welcome to come on and discuss these issues if they want to and Respectfully, I do think that Tim has been very generous with his time with me over the phone

And so I do appreciate that and I do respect the fact that he's working on another edition.

He's busy. I get that That's completely fine. So I just wanted to throw that out there at any rate

Okay, so we are coming up to an hour and I imagine we can't get through this whole outline So I want to ask two things and then we'll kind of come to the questions to the questions if that's okay

And if anyone wants they can read the the full I guess book. I mean, would you call it a book?

I mean, it's it looks like an article I guess but it's literally a book. Well, how would you refer to your work there?

Um, I don't know. I've kind of went back and forth I don't like calling it a book either because I think books like a philosophy book has to do with a thesis and then you're interacting with You're arguing for something and interacting with people

That could have potential objections to your work and to your thesis and you're trying to defend it in light of that I don't do any of that right?

I'm just responding to a brother Really? And so I don't I that's why

I called it a reply. Yeah, I don't even like calling it a review because it's not even a

It's not even a review of his book It's mainly a reply to just mere moanism and Tim is the chief advocate of mere moanism today

It's really just a reply to his overall philosophy and theology in general. Yeah Okay Just one thing about moanism in general and I agree with with Guillaume out of out of all the false views it's my favorite

So I do I there's something about moanism that always brings me back to like hey man, it's really fascinating I wonder how they answered this and so it's definitely a view that's worth at least for me

It's worth my time to interact with I do find it fascinating and I'm interested in defenses of it But but again at the end of the day,

I'm a convinced Calvinist and saying I'm determined to be that way doesn't Phase me one bit.

It shouldn't phase other Calvinist either So so here my last two points here though, and I do apologize.

We can't get through the whole outline, but Maybe I'll have you on again for another another episode or something like that.

That'd be cool. Okay, so in terms of Turning the table in terms of not critiquing moanism

Actually, I'm gonna save that for the second part. Let's deal with moanism here So mere moanism if you can summarize

I could just let you blab right now I'm just like I'm gonna ask this and just let you run Do you think that moanism is flat -out false or?

Improbable the argument isn't strong enough. Do you have a like a like a defeater for moanism? How would you right now someone says hey refute mere moanism or moanism

In general, how would you unpack that from a more? I know you don't have like an outline or notes, but but how would you begin to engage in a refutation?

Some people take the approach of bringing up the grounding objective objection other people bring the approach of saying

Hey, if libertarian free will is one of the pillars of moanism. Let's attack libertarianism what it what should be the tactic of the

Calvinist who's interacting with the moanist and wants to kind of engage and You know and show why one shouldn't hold it

There's a couple of reasons I'm not a fan of the grounding objection. I think it's kind of old news.

And so and neither the Even the people in the debate like Flynn Hasker.

They're just like I'm bored They're not getting anywhere within the debate if you read their replies, they're just out of stance stalemate

So I don't I think that's kind of a dead end, but there is some work still being produced on it But to me personally

I would attack libertarian freedom. That's the first thing So I just don't find that the categorical ability necessary for response rational responsibility is just Necessary like it's a very strong position to say that you need the liberty of Contradiction or the ability to have true beliefs over false beliefs

In order to be rationally responsible, which is what Tim Stratton wants to say It's a very strong claim and which at least in mere moanism

I see virtually no support of at all. No independent support at least not support that doesn't entail question -begging

So I think that's the first thing. The second thing is I would actually take something like Hasker to bring about argument or Welty's gunslinger,

I understand Stratton has dealt with well dealt with wealthy's gunslinger

Analogy before but I don't think he understands necessarily. I'm saying that respectfully, but I don't think he understands

Wealthy's gunslinger analogy. He doesn't get the fact of what he's trying to say So basically the argument is like similar to the bring about where it's there's virtually almost no difference between Calvinist Deterministic Providence and Molinas deterministic

Providence all said and done There's there's virtually no difference between the

Providence's you still have a God who ought who Ought to be labeled as some

Collect has ought to have some sort of collective responsibility attached to let's just say that I don't want to get too much into it but let's just and of course the

Calvinist denies it, but the The Molinas usually likes to pin it on the Calvinist saying no.

No author you'll see ZZ Determinism and I would just say the Molinas is in the same boat.

So pick a different argument Yeah, so I think those arguments good So when you say that you don't think that the categorical ability to do otherwise is necessary for would you say rational responsibility?

Yeah, because that's what Stratton likes to say. I would also say moral responsibility as well He says rash.

So yeah, so he says moral responsibility entails rational responsibility, which to me makes no difference like okay

So I can concede that doesn't matter what's necessary for rational responsibility. It's got to be necessary for moral responsibility so if you think that alternative possibilities and the deliberation process is entailed by rational responsibility if Moral entails rational.

Well, then you have a hypothetical syllogism moral entails the same alternatives That's what

I argue in the my reply here, but he's still gonna say rational. So I just use the term rational

Okay, so when you say okay, so if we could define our terms briefly here So you we can talk about two senses of ability, right?

So when people appeal to the idea of the ability to do otherwise There's a distinction between what we call conditional ability to do otherwise and categorical ability to do otherwise

So categorical ability to do otherwise is what Tim would hold is what libertarians would hold is what?

Incompatibilist would hold so they believe that Determinism and moral responsibility or rational responsibility is incompatible.

You need the ability to do Otherwise in a categorical sense all things being equal. You can choose other than what you in fact choose.

Have I got it? Yeah, the issue is strands gonna try to push back. So I tried to and I Really really hope that those who are listening actually does take the time because we're just doing a brief

Summary on all my claims really not even all of them, but okay a lot of the arguments I Argue and Jonathan Thompson who

I believe is in the chat He would say it he would agree with me I argue a nauseam all these different kinds of objections that Tim could respond to and he's gonna respond like well

We don't need the alternative possibility condition all the time Or something like sources all that's necessary or something like that Ice in my libertarian section

I I To me, I'm gonna be humble, but I am confident that I defeat that square square in the face

No, you need the alternative possibility if you're a libertarian the necessary condition is indeterminism indeterminism by definition entails alternative possibilities

Which means by definition you need some sort of alternative possibilities whether they're weak or strong somewhere in your causal history all incompatible

Say this even Kevin Tempe who's a source and compatibilist would argue that some sort of alternative possibilities are

Necessary in the causal history of the agent. So it's just the case whether they're weak or strong now

That's the first thing. I think you can't just have source hood. Second thing is

Strand does argue that leeway is necessary in his own prize limits limited libertarian freedom

Definition so to me you need alternatives to be able to Believe truth over Falsehood, so you need to have an alternative to take the truth route or the falsehood route when you're deliberating

Well, that's alternatives, right? So you need the alternative possibility now Stratton will also push back and say well the categorical

I don't use the word categorical that much that's he's actually in personal Correspondence.

He's literally said that line to me. I stopped using the word categorical. Here's the problem in your book podcasts

Articles everywhere besides your rejoinder and new work. You've used the word categorical everywhere

Like everywhere in the book in the first four pages. He starts dropping the categorical Okay So the issue is he wants to now use in the rejoinder to be on this idea of broad and narrow abilities

Which is basically a dispositional Analysis, so it's not a conditional. It's not a categorical analysis.

It's a conditional analysis Here's the problem Libertarians cannot use the dispositional analysis as necessary.

Well as sufficient conditions for responsibility they can concede the necessity of a disposition like a

Dispositions like if I drop a sugar cube in water, it's gonna dissolve So it has a disposition to dissolve in water if it were to be dropped into water

That's kind of like the basics of disposition But he argues the broad and narrow ability in his rejoinder to being on completely negates the fact that the categorical is there and I'm just sitting here like What like why?

Why because the libertarianism is a strong view it must have

The categorical and so he doesn't really explain too much and the rejoinder to being on but as far as I can tell

That's the only ability he thinks is sufficient and necessary for rational responsibility And that's just plain false because well guess what the compatibles can say the same thing

So then what distinguishes his view between the compatibles view? he needs something that distinguishes his view and in terms of ability between the between the compatibles and the libertarian

Incompatible and compatibles and that is the categorical analysis So no matter what no matter how he defines it, he cannot get away from the categorical analysis

He must hold to something categorical in the deliberative process hmm

All right. Excellent. There's a lot to chew on and I hopefully a lot of the name drop that you've given throughout the

This interview here this discussion people could check those out and check out the work that's related to that.

So You're doing a great job man. Appreciate it Folks, we're gonna we're gonna transition to the

Q &A session. Just want to give a shout out to MJ Jackson Thank you so much for your $5 super chat

We'll ask your question first do appreciate it and we have a pretty decent audience here. I only got four likes

What's up with that man? If you like this discussion, but click those like buttons. That's super super helpful Let's me know if you guys are jiving with the discussion

So I'd appreciate that but MJ with his first question here Do you interact with Roman seven regarding compatibilism does that ever enter into your

Things have you written down or maybe just in your own personal studies. I've thought about it I haven't necessarily written anything on it because I mean

John has never really written anything on it So so far, I mean I've thought about it and I haven't really seen a clean

Detailed response from an incompatibilist using that as an argument against compatibilism.

So I Just kind of assume and I'm okay with saying that I'd kind of assume that guidance control or other theories of compatibilism

At least most could probably accommodate on the seven Maybe not the conditional ability, but I agree with being on the conditional ability is not sufficient for responsibility

Anyways, it's just necessary. So even then it wouldn't matter. Okay. All right. Thank you

Phil bear says what's the difference between a defense and an argument in your eyes? So you did make a distinction between defending and actually providing an argument.

Yeah defense is negative argumentation So it's arguing against a view when someone else has the burden of proof

So to me, I think of like a court case So the prosecution has the burden of proof the defense does not right

So the defense can technically just assume that his client is innocent all the way through Even if he knows his client is guilty

He can assume that the client is innocent all the way through he doesn't have the burden of proof and then just argue

Some made -up story. I mean that happens in court cases all the time So you don't necessarily need to have like believe what you're saying in order to defend against it

You can just defend now. Obviously, I did I believe in capitalism and I defend thousand but the long story long story short is

It defends is negative argumentation. Whereas an argument is what we would call positive Argumentation.

Okay, so Stratton has laid out arguments for his view saying I positively am arguing for this

Not negatively arguing against something else. And so if he's positively arguing for incompatible ism

Then that is a positive argumentation and he would be arguing at the same time against compatible ism an example for defense and not an argument is something like Binyan's Response to the consequence argument.

So he responds using the conditional and categorical and so he just He doesn't have the burden.

So he doesn't he can question beg and say that And I know it sounds weird because he doesn't have the burden like can you really talk in circles and the idea is kind of?

Yes, he can assume the conditional ability when he's responding to the consequence argument.

Why it's not his burden Sure, but let's just say tables are turned and he has to now argue for compatible ism

Is he going to argue for the conditional? No, he doesn't do that in this book He argues it differently because he knows now he can't question big the conditional.

He has to have independent reasons for it He realizes he doesn't have independent reasons for the conditional so he doesn't argue for the conditional

He argues like the plaguing argument or Edwardsian argument or something like that And so these are just like mild differences in volume two, which will come out hopefully later this year

With my reply to stride. I have a whole section on Stratton and Binyan like literally

Their controversies throughout the year and I did this that Stratton Misunderstands that he misunderstands a defense and an argument and that muddies the waters with his conversations with being on.

Mm -hmm All right. Thank you for that I'm not sure if you'll understand this question because I don't know the context here but Danny asks did he

I suppose you give motivations for why he's trying to make sense or Preserve or preserve of two senses of freedom.

I don't know. Yeah, I understand. Yeah he's saying that the Stratton give motivations for why he's making the distinction between non -exhaustive and exhaustive or You can be compatible in some ways and not others and the idea is yes he has but it doesn't matter

So let's just say let's just take compatibilism He wants to say that compatibilism could obtain at some time and incompatibility could the same obtain at some other time.

So non -exhaustive incompatibilism or Compatibilism so he's saying in some freedoms are compatible with determinism and some freedoms are not which ones are not

Rational deliberation so he's gonna die on that hill because that's the hill his free -thinking arguments on Trans thinking arguments on and he's gonna say that is absolutely incompatible with determinism

I'm gonna die on that but some other freedoms like lesser freedoms are compatible like he says ordering tacos or ordering at a restaurant or something and The idea is yes, that's true.

Robert Kane is also conceded this compatibilists have conceded this to use the problem We don't care

What is the what is the responsibility that we care about? Dessert so deserving praise or blame in either your rational deliberations or your moral actions

What kind of responsibility does Stratton say is incompatible with that? Hmm all kinds.

So when he says he tries to give wiggle room saying oh, well, I'm a compatibilist to insist I just look at that and like why don't why do

I care no compatibilist cares about that? And I'm saying this kind of bluntly but and being truthful and I've told him this in personal correspondence

Because it's just no one cares about that. No compatibilist is gonna say. Oh, yeah, you're right that that's true

You you can be compatible while ordering tacos, but not compatible while rationally deliberating whether or not to order tacos.

Mm -hmm It's just trivial. Yes, it's true, but it's trivial and compatibilists don't care about that kind of responsibility

So why bring it up in the first place? Especially if you're trying to not money the waters and bridge the gap between Calvinist and Molinus and incompatible as incompatible us

You're not doing a good job. If you're gonna do it that way we care about rational responsibility in the dessert sense

Just like he does we say it's compatible determinism. He says it's not Leave it at that.

Hmm argue that instead of bringing up all these unnecessary stuff. It's meaningless All right.

Thank you for that. Irresistible. Truth says we love Eli's laugh. Thank you so much I laugh really loud.

So Sorry, I'm not blowing anyone's here So freed thinker the free thinker

Tyler asks a question How would you respond to Stratton's claim that God predestines everything even sin, but this isn't

Deterministic I'm gonna read that again because that's a good that's a good question How would you respond to Stratton's claim that God predestines everything even sin, but this isn't deterministic?

I think I've talked to Tyler about this before but I have a footnote in the Determinant early in the determinism section and I actually maybe

I'm awful But I actually concede Stratton's claim here because I just have bigger fish to fry.

I guess I'm gonna I just concede and say For the benefit of the doubt. Let's just give him that let's just say yes predestination

You can have predestination without having something being determined It just depends on whether or not you think both are necessary for Providence and obviously he doesn't think determinism is necessary for Providence He thinks predestination is

The open theist would disagree in some sense, right but it's I actually give him that The idea though is or what?

I'm kind of thinking the back of my mind is the same Thing that Bella is thinking that it just really doesn't make sense if you predestine something you are

The sufficient condition for that happening now, you could say there's other sufficient conditions like Libertarian free creatures, but then

I would expect a model of a better model to see how he can determine or sorry

How he can predestine libertarian free creatures in such a way as to not violate their freedom

But yet get them to do what they do Especially when something like the cross of the crucifixion or prophecy is involved.

That's a little bit more tricky Stratton does none of that So, I mean take it or leave it

I concede the claim in my book because I want to deal with other stuff, but I would agree with Bella here

There's virtually no distinction. All right, Tyler has another question here. I'm just going down in order What is lost from the force of Molin ism by Stratton's mere

Molin ism that eschews the metaphysical commitment Molin ism makes in the literature What is lost from the force of Molin ism by Stratton's mere

Molin ism that excuse that eschews the metaphysical commitments? Molin ism makes in the literature

Yeah May have already answered it. Okay, I don't know

I would say if I'm understanding the question correctly I would say the categorical strand wants to get rid of the categorical and Say instead of dispositional ability and opportunity or whatever

Doesn't work for him not in his kind of argument for the free -thinking argument So he loses the force of his mere

Molin ism and hence my dilemma the Calvinist horn of the free -thinking horn so When when he does that I think that's how the question

I think I'm understanding the question correctly All right, just a real quick shout out to Jonathan Thomas.

He says hey Colton and hi Eli. Hello, Jonathan I hope you're doing well

Jonathan's a good guy here. We're moving along. How are you doing? Can you have room for you have time for a couple more questions?

Let's do it Okay, now you gotta find them people do not preface.

No. Well, everyone hasn't prefaced their question with question Apologize if I skip over anything here

Yeah, there's not a question but a statement Tim says he's a Calvinist does Tim say that or unless she's unless slamming slamming

He says he's reformed He's Calvinist and so to me

That doesn't make any sense either now granted an Armenian I guess could be a reformed

It just depends on definitions. Hence. My whole volume is about definitions. So he does say he's reformed but he doesn't say he's

Calvinist He is honest hardcore Okay, all right,

Bill Bear is making a point here that we're being uncharitable by doing this

I wonder if we can kind of interact with that biblical principle that was mentioned before it says

You're missing the point. He's kind of in conversation with someone else. It's how people present the material that matters They don't give

Tim the benefit of the doubt and that's uncharitable is I mean, I don't know. I Mean the benefit of the doubt.

I mean we've both had personal interactions with Tim And we listen to him I've listened to his multiple videos

Defending his view. I mean, I don't I don't see how we're not giving him the benefit of that He's been invited to come on.

I mean, I Don't know Maybe a rhetorical ploy, but it there's no foundation to it.

I have add not a Jonathan Thompson who is in the chat. I Tim in free -thinking ministries, and he has many screenshots of Many conversations

I've had with Tim where I am trying to be as charitable as possible Almost too charitable to the point where it makes

Jonathan kind of sick because I should push back a little bit more I've given

Tim so much benefit of the doubt So much so that the reason why it's 300 pages is because I give him so much benefit of the doubt

He could respond this way if he does respond this way. What's my response ten more pages? He could respond this way.

If he doesn't respond this way, he could respond this way. So what's my response ten more pages? I go throughout and I steal man this

Tim strands work as best as I possibly can That's to me the most charitable

I can be in that conversation like this and there's there's nothing wrong, too. There's nothing like Nefarious about what we're doing here.

I mean even I think Tim would agree when you have published work Like that's fair game to interact with like that's what it's there for so you can interact with it

So I don't think there's any uncharitability going on yeah, and I would expect nothing less from this man right here or Tim himself to basically get on a

Channel with Tim Fox his brother and just say yeah, let's let's critique

Eli and Colton Yes, yeah, and I'd be like great. Let me watch it. Let me take detailed notes and like I would

Expect nothing less. The only thing I should say is Read my 300 page reply or at the very least look through the table of contents and see

How much I really do give him the benefit of the doubt I concede a lot to that man

A lot to that man throughout the 300 pages and then I try to show Through my concessions through my steel manning not straw manning through my arduous quoting him

Almost annoying quoting him. I try to show why he's wrong. That is charitable That's giving him the benefit of the doubt and that's we're supposed to be doing like obviously you're critiquing of you

Yeah, that's you know, you know, unless you're not unless you're reading uncritically, right? So, all right, thank you for that still appreciate

Phil barrier comment there Thank you for reminding us the importance of that principle that found in Proverbs.

I think that is important Irresistible truth says a joke is that Molin ism is determinism light

Doesn't Molin ism entail determinism at the end of the day. God chooses the options knowing people will go to heaven or hell, etc

So want to be Be careful here because I want to say yes or no

There's other Molnus. I think compatible us are often accused of being Pharaoh's magicians

That's what Jerry Wallace have called Compatible us because we have tricks up our sleeve and we can kind of maneuver around objections

I think Molnus can do the same which is why I love Molnus They can be very sly and it's squirrelly, right?

There's so little caveats the end. Some of them are brilliant I think that's a great response. So I want to say yes

I I want to just say the bring about argument is where I'd probably If pushed if pushed

I would put my stakes on the bring about argument from Hasker or wealthy's Gunslinger and that's as much as I can say as close as I can say that Molnus and becomes

Determinism, but I would never say Molnus. Um actually is determinism I would just say it is analogous or to me that there's

No relevant similarity or at best even better. There is one relevant similarity between that That's I think a better argument than just saying it entails it

Because I think the entailment can get tricky because then you're like necessary entailments and it's hard logistically, but I could bring it about with a

Analogy and I think that's what wealthy tries to do in others. So Okay, thank you for that Ryan Brown asked the question what would

Colton's response be on the Opportunity to do otherwise that some incompatibilist would argue.

Yeah. So Franklin is probably the number one incompatibilities thinking about here Chris Franklin and I would say it's a good argument.

I think it's better than the consequence argument So Franklin's no opportunity argument is better.

However Just like every libertarian they can't dance around the categorical you have to assume the categorical

How do I know that? Franklin who is a dispositional kind of Incompatibilist and who wants to affirm something like the opportunity to do otherwise?

He himself responds to the luck objection by using the categorical So in order to defend his libertarianism, he has to defend it using the categorical

So to me, it's when he defends when he argues for Libertarianism using the dispositional analysis

It's it's just kind of odd. Like I just don't understand why he's using that I get it

He wants to make minimal room for libertarianism and have a new -age argument whatever and I respect him for it

But it's still he needs the categorical somewhere and then it just falls back into the consequence argument

I kind of I already I kind of explained that in my section on broad ability and dispositional analysis underneath responsibility ability and train for style examples in that section 2 .4,

but I also want to say that compatibilist have argued that the dispositional ability is

Possible underneath compatibilism. So let's just say Incompatibilist says oh the dispositional ability is possible underneath Incompatibilism great so can the compatibilist they can say the same thing.

What's the difference? Yeah, there's no difference then like that's why I think you have to boil back down to the categorical for the incompatible which makes the difference and then we can see ah

Here's the difference and then give me an independent reason for why the categorical is necessary for rational responsibility.

I don't have it. So Yeah, sure. All right. Thank you for that Jarrell lemus says

I may have missed it. But where can I find the writings of Colton Carlson? Where can people go to actually maybe download or maybe on a website or something like that where they can find your 300 page?

Academia edu so you can do that. It's free account that you can make and you can download it free there

Academia edu you can just search my name Colton Carlson philosophy or a brief philosophical response or brief philosophical and dialectical inquiry and Then I should pop up and then you can download it

It's 300 and it's hyperlinked so you can click on the contents and everything If you don't want to read all of it, just go through the section you want to read click on it

Takes you right there. I try to make it like that There's number one and number two I have not really written responses, but a lot of videos on YouTube on the freed thinker

So Tyler bellows show some podcasts there some audio recordings Irresistible truth.

I've done some videos there against in some incompatible s and then I have my own podcast

That's kind of still working. My buddy just had a baby. So we kind of not doing anything lately, but sure

It's called truth c -squared because you know Colton Carlson. I thought it was cute

He squared I have some podcast episodes where I kind of explain my view of Providence and determinism and some objections to My model of a free will compatilist defense.

Sure. Sure. Awesome. Well, well, that's the final question And the list here rest in peace mere

Molin ism. Probably not. It's probably going to be just Continued to continually debated which is fine, right?

This is fruitful Discussion it's an in -house debate Discussion what

I encourage people to do though is to continue to have these debates and use them as an opportunity to practice

Gentleness and respect in the midst of disagreement. It's okay to disagree.

You shouldn't be offended, right? I'm when I every time I kind of scroll through YouTube or whatever Sometimes I'll find someone made a video about something.

I said, I'm like, oh snap someone made a review video It's easy to the first knee -jerk reaction is to be likes to be offended

But you know what not everyone's gonna agree and that's okay as long as we're able to navigate it in a way That's that's honoring to Christ.

I think that's important Yeah Absolutely. Well Colton, I would definitely love to have you back on I was thinking

The preview I think a couple of episodes ago. I had what I and what I titled the epic precept

Roundtable, I want to do something similar and call it the epic Calvinism roundtable and maybe

I'll have you on with a bunch of other people some unlikely guests that I can hopefully Convince to come on.

Would you be interested in doing something like that in the future? Awesome. Well, you've done a great job and folks just looking at the comments folks have benefited from this conversation a lot

So if you enjoyed this conversation, I know I did I'm learning and I'm definitely gonna go back and finish reading

Colton's book I keep Accidentally calling it an article but but if you guys enjoyed this share it talk about it and continue to engage in the comments and You know,

I hope this has been beneficial. So that's it for this episode guys. Thanks again and God bless.