The Fatal Flaw of Molinism Pressed

Just did the debate and I can guarantee you, all our Molinist friends will be in a frenzy for a while, so I want to make sure the conversations stay centered on what really matters. So get a deep seat and make sure you are ready for all the chatter that will be appearing, especially this coming Friday when the Unbelievable episode airs featuring my discussion with William Lane Craig.

#Unbelievable #podcast #reasonablefaith #clip #free #freedom #will #Election #WilliamLaneCraig #show #theodicy #ProblemofEvil #knowledge #worlds #determinism

[rachelguy]

People will do gymnastics to try and fit there own ideas in the Bible because there trusting there flesh over the word of God thank you dr white for sharing the truth so clearly

[GoodNewsEveryone]

Question. I'm not a molinist, but in response to the grounding objection, could God himself not be his own delimiting factor? Could we not say that God is limiting himself in his creative options because he values the free choice of free creatures? Why must it be that the delimiting factor is external to God? Would love to hear a response to this, if possible. Thanks!

[pinkdiscomosh]

This one hits hard! I was a full blown Molinist before I was a Calvinist and one of the issues I had with Craigs view points of things was this idea that human philosophy is such a lynch pin that God cannot exist in such a way that would put him beyond our philosophical understanding. In other words, if you can’t put God in a box, then he can’t be possible. What James said about the epistemological remark by Craig was what lead me away from Molinism. This idea that middle knowledge has to determine what God does in order for him to be absolved from wrong doing in actuating a world where sin exists. Which, as James stated, throws out every verse about how all things are from him, to him and through him. Because clearly, middle knowledge can’t be, it just has to be true in order to fit God in our philosophical box.

[sanjaytennyson]

I'm not a Molinist and by far not a Calvinists yet the straw man set up by Dr.White is common.

[arthur]

I don't see how anyone is any freer or less determined under Molinism than Calvinism. On Molinism, God decrees to create a specific "possible world', thereby determining every event that will ever occur in it according to what God infallibly knows will occur in it before he creates. God's omniscient knowledge of everything that will ever occur in any possible world he actualizes does not determine those events - but it does indicate that those events ARE DETERMINED and CAN/WILL NOT be other than he knew they would be BEFORE he created that world. As on Calvinism, all creatures destinies are irrevocably fixed by God's decree.

[RobotMowerTricks]

For those new to this topic, or thinking little of philosophy, or think it's "less than", I'd recommend a lecture on youtube by Richard Howe "Theology needs philosophy". Don't worry, it's not a molinist, there's no hidden agenda, it's just helpful in understanding the proper place of philosophy in exegesis and theology.

[benjaminblack]

There were some thoughtful points, but I do have to say I find it interesting that at 7:09-7:29 Dr. White, while declaring that the way he thinks of Molinism would deny true free will, seems to agree that his view produces the same result in that regard, while also saying that he still thinks we have a freewill.

The fact that many agree on seems to have been tacitly acknowledged, Calvinism denies free will.

[carlosbrown]

I lean toward Calvinism but this video makes me think that White doesn't understand Molinism, which is something that WLC was basically pointing out in the debate. Also White doesn't come across as a charitable person, he uses a mocking tone aimed at other believers.

[joshhenderson]

👏👏 Spot on. I can't wait for this debate to drop.

[robertknight]

W.L.C makes me work on my sanctification every time I see and or hear him. Just does.

[dylanmilks]

Thank you Dr White for this clear, concise and logical explanation. You're so right, there nothing is in Word of God that would suggest Molinism. It's a man-made philosophy.

[kennylee]

Perhaps I am wrong or dumb and I’m fine with that, but having listened to the objection, I have a question: Why is it that the truth of subjunctive conditionals of human freedom NOT being under God’s control mean that it must be wrong? Are there not many things outside of God’s control that God is limited by?

For example, God cannot sin. He cannot be evil or lie or bow to false idols. These are limitations that stem from his nature as a holy God. Can it not be said that the truth value of subjunctive conditionals of human freedom are limitations that stem from Libertarian Free Will and logic?

In fact, did God create logic? I think most people will say that logic is grounded in God’s nature. God cannot do the logically impossible. That is a limitation that stems from that nature. Thus, when God chooses to create free agents, then inherent to that decision comes the limitation that these free agents, if truly “free” as in libertarian free will, will make decisions of their own volition and with no compulsion by God. This isn’t to say the limitation itself is on a higher plane of existence that constricts God, but simply by nature of logic, these limitations must exist inherent to free will.

Now denying that God would/did create truly free creatures is fine, but I don’t see how the mere existence of limitations - which themselves exist due to God’s logical nature - is contrary to any biblical scripture regarding God?

[KennethSee]

Nail on the head! Amen and amen! Has the debate been posted somewhere? I'd love to watch it.

[nicknunley]

This dude is so prideful it’s hard to watch. Calling Dr. Craig a mere philosopher that doesn’t believe the Bible is Gods Word is arrogant and malicious. He should spend less of his time making straw man arguments of other Christian leaders and realize some people that disagree with him aren’t denying the truth of scripture or believing pagan teachings. Is he that confident his interpretation of scripture is 100% correct in every area to allow him to treat Bill Craig like that? I wonder what a modern Pharisee would look like?

[otavio.silva]

Bill Craig, when asked how he would explain Ephesians 1:11, did not respond.

[SincerelyUnconscious]

1. Misunderstanding Middle Knowledge:
James White claims that Molinism limits God’s freedom by relying on middle knowledge, suggesting that God’s decrees are based on what humans would do.

Molinism teaches that God knows all possible outcomes (middle knowledge) and chooses to create a world where His purposes are fulfilled without overriding human freedom (1 Corinthians 10:13, Matthew 11:21-23). This means God’s sovereignty includes His knowledge of how free creatures will act.

2. Feasibility and God’s Sovereignty:
White implies that Molinism prioritizes human actions over God’s glory. In contrast, Molinists assert that God selects the best feasible world to achieve His divine purposes, balancing human freedom and divine glory. This aligns with biblical teachings that God’s ultimate plans are fulfilled through human actions (Genesis 50:20, Acts 2:23).

3. God as Author of Sin:
White argues that Molinism does not absolve God from being the author of sin. Molinism maintains that humans are responsible for their sinful actions (James 1:13-14). God permits these actions but does not cause them, using them for a greater good without being morally responsible for the sin itself (Romans 8:28).

4. Grounding Objection:
The grounding objection questions the basis of counterfactual truths. Molinists argue that these truths are grounded in God’s omniscience. God’s knowledge of what free creatures would do is part of His perfect understanding (Psalm 139:1-4). This does not limit God’s sovereignty but reflects His comprehensive foreknowledge.

5. Philosophical and Scriptural Basis:
White claims Molinism is philosophical and not derived from Scripture. However, Molinists find their views consistent with biblical teachings on God’s foreknowledge and human freedom (1 Samuel 23:11-12, Matthew 26:24-25). Molinism uses philosophy to articulate a biblical understanding of these concepts.

6. Human Freedom:
White criticizes Molinism for offering a superficial view of freedom. Molinism holds that true freedom involves acting according to one’s will without coercion. This view respects human responsibility and aligns with biblical examples of human choices impacting God’s plans (Deuteronomy 30:19, Joshua 24:15).

In summary, Molinism seeks to harmonize God’s sovereignty, human freedom, and divine foreknowledge. It emphasizes that God, in His omniscience, chooses the best possible world where His purposes are accomplished through genuinely free human actions. This view is supported by various scriptural passages and seeks to maintain both divine sovereignty and human responsibility.

[Mike-qtjp]

While I absolutely believe God causes/ordains/determines some things. I don’t believe He causes everything to happen. In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, "People built high places to sacrifice their children (in fire) to foreign gods, and He (God) says, "I did NOT COMMAND this, nor did it enter my mind."

Also, Joshua 24:15 has Joshua saying, "CHOOSE you this day whom you will serve."

What does the Calvinist say sin is? The Biblical definition of sin is missing the mark. Not doing God's will. How can there be sin if God is CAUSING everything to happen? What is sin if EVERYTHING that happens, ONLY happens because GOD CAUSES it to happen? Also, how can there be obedience if EVERTHING ONLY happens because AGAIN God causes all to happen, even "obedience" to God's commands?

God is His Absolute sovereignty chooses to give man enough free will to respond yes or no to God's admonition to choose life over death; choose Christ.

[AidenRKrone]

I do not know how other Molinists would respond, but as a Molinist myself, I believe that God actualized the best of all possible worlds _(à la_ Leibniz's psychophysical parallelism), that is to say, the world in which the _most_ amount of people are saved. That is the "delimiting factor" in God's middle-knowledge-informed creative decree. God did not "balance" between the most amount of people being saved and the amount of evil in the world; He took into account _only_ the amount of people who would accept Christ as Savior, and any other aspects are irrelevant to Him.

The so-called "fatal flaw" of Molinism, _.i.e._ that God is limited by the choices people make in possible worlds, is not actually a fatal flaw at all. God earnestly desires all people to respond to the well-meant offer of the Gospel (2 Peter 3:9), but He will not violate mankind's free will in order to make them do so. The only "limit" on God's creative power is His own mercy, grace, love, and compassion, which all manifest as His desire to see all men saved. Also, the truth of subjunctive conditionals is _not_ independent of God's will. The knowledge _belongs_ to Him; it exists in His divine mind, and thus it is a product of His essence.

As for the concept of trans-world damnation, I know William Lane Craig entertains the idea, but I personally reject it. I find it hard to believe that a person would reject Christ in an infinite amount of possible worlds. That just does not seem tenable from a scriptural and philosophical standpoint. I also disagree with Craig's assertion that some things are naturally true and do not require a truthmaker. God _is_ truth and logic, so all truths and logic emanates from Him; He _is_ the divine truthmaker.

[danmeyer]

God seeks a loving relationship with us, in much the same way that the Persons of God love one another. But, true love is a free and uncoerced act. Therefore, we must have free will in order to enter into a truly loving relationship with Him. The relationship of God to us is repeatedly in Scripture likened to a loving relationship between a father and his children. It's all about love, for God is love. So, we see that mankind must have free will. But, it is also abundantly clear that God is sovereign. So, any adequate explanation must account for both God's sovereignty and man's free will. Molinism beautifully does this. So, how does God have knowledge about what any agent God could actualize would freely choose in any circumstance that God may place him or her in? I agree with Dr. Craig and adopt a conceptual model of divine cognition. God can “imagine”, if you will, or at least conceive of, what they would freely do, because as God said to Jeremiah, “before I formed you in the womb I knew you” (Jeremiah 1:5). Scripture seems to imply a free choice when it says, “19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have placed before you life and death,  the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, 20 by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding close to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days,  so that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them” (Deuteronomy 30:19-20).

[BRNRDNCK]

If there are an infinite number of possible people and an infinite number of positions to put them in to make decisions (what they "would" do, or middle knowledge), then the idea that middle knowledge is a priori true to God's decree is utterly meaningless, because in that case God has an infinite number of choices to "allow" to exist, and God isn't even limited by whatever "subjunctive conditionals" are supposed to exist before his decree. Therefore, for molinism to be meaningful at all, the molinist has to maintain that there are a finite number of people and situations, which is counterintuitive and arbitrary.