Responding to James White's FATAL Objection to Molinism

James White and William Lane Craig had a discussion regarding perspectives on the problem of evil on Nov 29, 2021 (yesterday). Basically, this was a conversation about what view was better at solving the problem: Calvinism or Molinism. Although the recorded conversation is not yet available to the public, White immediately took to YouTube to summarize his conversation with Craig and in the process said some things about me. I want to address a couple of things White said in this video.

[PresbyterianPaladin]

I really love your point concerning James Whites view entailing feasible universalist world's and God just arbitrarily deciding to damn some anyway. The I in Tulip definitely has some seriously horrible consequences for our theology.

[lawrencestanley]

Response 2 of 2 regarding 1 Timothy 2:4

Furthermore, the Greek word that is used in 1 Timothy 2:4 for “desire, ” is the word θέλει and it is a word that simply speaks of a desire for something to be a certain way, an inclination if you will; it is not however the way of speaking that is used to express God’s will of decree, that is, His eternal purpose (Ephesians 1:11, Daniel 4:35), and there is a distinction between the two (Matthew 26:39, cf. Romans 9:22). Sometimes these two forms of desire are aligned, sometimes they are not, for instance, God hates sin with all His being (Psalm 5:4, 45:7), and yet God ordained that Joseph’s brothers sell him into slavery (Genesis 45:7-8, 50:20); God hates and forbids murder (Exodus 20:13), and yet it was the will of the Lord to crush the Son (Isaiah 53:10); God’s actions are always determined by His eternal purposes (Ephesians 3:9-11), not His desires, therefore this means that God disapproves of some of the things that He ordains, and some of the things that He desires, He does not ordain.

In this instance, we see that it is God’s inclination that “all men” would be saved; this is a reflection of passages like Ezekiel 18:23 and 32 where, with a view to their future damnation, we see that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (cf. Matthew 23:37), and it is for this reason that God is very patient with “all men, ” (cf. 2 Peter 3:9) pouring out temporal blessings indiscriminately upon all the earth so that His elect will come to repentance (Matthew 1:21, Romans 2:4-5). His temporal blessings are seen in the fact that God does not kill an individual the very instant that they violate the Law, even though that is what they deserve, He also sends out preachers into all the world to promiscuously declare God’s command to repent (Acts 17:25-29), and gives His warnings of judgment. However, God’s inclination for “all men” to be saved does not drive His actions like a person can be so easily driven by their emotions. The story of God wielding the Assyrians to judge Israel as a man wields a club can be seen in Isaiah 10, and even though their actions were very obviously ordained by God, they received judgement from Him for acting upon their own wicked intentions; this is a clear example of God ordaining the destruction of not just one man, but in this case, an entire people group, despite His inclination against the death (and damnation) of the wicked (cf. 1 Chronicles 5:26).

So, if it is God's will of decree that everyone on earth without exception be saved (as is the assertion of the unlimited redemptionist), and we know that YHWH nullifies the councils of the nations and frustrates the plans of the people, and that it is His council and His plans that stand forever (Psalm 33:10-12), knowing that no one frustrates the plans of God (Ephesians 1:11, Job 42:2), how is it then that men are not saved? If man uses his so-called "free will" to reject God, then man has just frustrated the plans of God. If however no one can frustrate the plans of God, as the scriptures say, and yet still, there are men who are not saved, then clearly it is not in God's WILL OF DECREE that everyone on earth without exception be saved.

[georgemoncayo]

Everything that happens in history has been decreed/Predestined before the world was created see Eph 1:11, Proverbs 16:33 and Amos 3:6. And yes even when terrible things happen, I know it's hard for some people to accept but look what happened when David sinned against God and one of Davids punishments was that God told him that he was going to use Davids own son to shame his Father by Absalom Absalom doing something immoral to his Fathers concubines in front of all of Israel, see 2 Samuel 12:11-12 God said "Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun." Notice how God said "I WILL DO THIS THING."That was fulfilled in 2 Samuel 16:21-22. Why then does God judge people for sins if it has been decreed long before hand by God himself ? Because God judges peoples intentions. In Isaiah 10 God used the evil Assyrians to fight and punish the Jews but then God said that he would punish the Assyrians for doing what God himself made them do. Why? Because verse 7 tells us it was because of their intentions, God had righteous intentions but the Assyrians did not. Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery but it was God who made that happen and Gen 50:20 says "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." In Acts 4:26-28 the early church prayed and declared God's sovereignty by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and said "The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the Lord and against His Christ, ’For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, TO DO WHATEVER YOUR HAND AND YOUR PURPOSE PREDESTINED TO OCCUR." Exodus 4:11 says "The LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes him mute or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?"

[ThePettiestOfficer_Juan]

@29:10 Anyone else get goosebumps when Dr. T-Strat goes, “I love…God!”

[georgemoncayo]

Jesus did not die for every single person ever and Jesus didn't die to make people savable. He died to save his elect. In John 17:9 Jesus said that he does not pray for the world. The word world is used in different contexts, in that context he's talking about the non elect. In John 3:16 world means that he purchased people from every tribe, tongue and nation Rev 5:9 and for the children of God scattered abroad John 11:52. Some have been "long beforehand marked out for condemnation" Jude 4 and "appointed to doom." 1 Peter 2:8. About Pharaoh God said “For this VERY PURPOSE I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Rom 9:17-18. Jesus said "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Matthew 11:25-27. So, 2 Pet 3:9 the "not willing that any should perish" if you read that letter in context, 2 Pet 1:1 says "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours." As far as salvation for all men verses, Paul was refuting the false notion of his time that God was only desiring to save just the Jews and 1 Tim 2:2 says to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" because as humans WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE ELECT ARE SO WE PRAY FOR EVERYONE! That's what it means in verse 4 by saying "all men." Amos 3:2 God said "of all the nations of the earth I have only known you." For centuries God passed over the majority of humankind because this verse isn't about knowledge it's about relationship. And it isn't because God foresaw Israel was more righteous then the other nations because sometimes Israel was more sinful then the pagan nations see 2 Kings 21:9. Only those who were predestined to be saved will be see Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:4-5, Eph 1:11, Romans 9:11-23, John 6:37.

[lawrencestanley]

At 39:10, the reason that God ordains the facts and circumstances of men’s lives as well as the mutable nature of men’s wills so that they succumb to error and disbelief (1 Kings 22:22, Judges 9:23, 1 Samuel 16:14, 18:10, 19:9, Romans 1:28, 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12), and that they willingly sin against God (Genesis 45:8, 50:20, 2 Samuel 12:11-12); that He reveals Himself to some, while hiding Himself from and blinding others, is because God often works through secondary causes to bring about His will – That is, God ordains situations that men may sin, so that God might demonstrate His wrath, so that as a result of His wrath, men might repent (Isaiah 63:17, 64:7, 30:28, Psalm 81:11-16, 2 Chronicles 7:13-14, Luke 13:1-5), and it is well-pleasing in the sight of the Father to do this (Matthew 11:25-27).

Isaiah 63:17 - Why, O Lord, do You cause us to stray from Your ways and harden our heart from fearing You? Return for the sake of Your servants, the tribes of Your heritage.
Isaiah 64:7 - There is no one who calls on Your name, who arouses himself to take hold of You; for You have hidden Your face from us and have delivered us into the power of our iniquities.

[lawrencestanley]

At 21:21, 1 Timothy 2:4 doesn't mean what you think it means...

Response 1 of 2

Paul is writing his first letter to Timothy, a young pastor in the church in Ephesus, shortly after his release from his first Roman imprisonment in 62-64AD. This was during the time of the first Christian persecution under Nero. After the great fire that lasted for 3 days and nights in Rome, after Nero was suspected of causing the inferno, he scapegoated an already hated group – the Christians. As a result of this persecution and hatred, Nero rolled Christians in pitch or oil and then set fire to them while they were still alive and used them as living torches to light his garden parties. He served them up in the skins of wild animals to his hunting dogs to tear them to shreds. They were nailed to crosses, imprisoned, racked, seared, broiled, burned, scourged, stoned, hanged, public lynchings were common, some were lacerated with hot knives and others thrown on the horns of wild bulls.

After all of this began, when we examine 1 Timothy 2:1, we find Paul urging Timothy to pray for “all men.” Now, the recipient of this letter, after living under the horrible persecution of Nero might not be very motivated to pray for him or for men like him; after all, he might feel a bit like Jonah did, who, when he was commanded by God to preach repentance to the Ninevites, he did not want to go because he wanted to see them judged, not forgiven. Timothy might believe that he should pray for the average sinner, but surely Paul didn’t mean that he should pray for a wicked ruler such as Nero. But here, Paul qualifies exactly who he meant for Timothy to pray for in verse 2: “for kings and all who are in authority.” It’s as if Paul were telling Timothy, “pray for all men, yes, even for wicked rulers!” And in case Timothy might question why they should be praying for men like Nero, since he is so wicked and deserving of judgment just like the Ninevites were, Paul explains, “so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.” Of course, the only way that Christians could live a tranquil and quiet life under the rulership of evil men is if, like the Ninevites, those evil men are granted repentance, so Timothy’s prayers are to be for all kinds of people, even for wicked rulers. Jonah’s lesson should also be Timothy’s lesson, that God even desires the salvation of the kind of men that strike terror from places of power, dominance, and leadership. I’m sure that in this letter to Timothy, Paul had himself in mind here, since before his own conversion, he was violently persecuting the church under the authority of the high priests.

Paul’s first use of the phrase “all men” comes at the end of verse 1, “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men.” Then in verse 2, Paul explains who is being referred to by his use of “all men;” it is “for kings and all who are in authority” – these are kinds of men, or classes of men; he obviously isn’t talking about “absolutely everyone without exception” here, because if the “all men” did mean “all without exception, ” then the distinction of “for kings and all who are in authority” would be redundant. In this passage, Paul is telling Timothy to be sure to include all kinds of men in his prayers (including wicked men in leadership positions like Nero), because in verse 4, God desires all men (all kinds of men) to be saved since in verse 6, He gave Himself as a ransom for all (all kinds of men), (cf. Romans 3:29, Revelation 5:9, Galatians 3:28).

And we know that the “all” in verse 6 that Jesus gave Himself a ransom for is not “all without exception.” The covenant, ratified with the blood of the sacrifice (cf. Genesis 8:20, 15:9-10) was made for "many, " not "all, " see Matthew 26:27-28. This same "many" was spoken of earlier by Jesus in Matthew 20:28 where He explains that He paid the ransom price for "many, " and not "all." Propitiation actually removes wrath; the certificate of debt has actually been removed (Colossians 2:14), therefore if an unlimited atonement were true, then absolutely everyone without exception would be saved, and this is simply not true.

It is common in Paul’s writings for him to refer to “all kinds of men” as he did in 1 Timothy 2. For instance, in Titus 2:11, he uses the phrase “all men;” “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men.” This “all men” had been qualified earlier in the chapter to be “older men” in verse 2, “older women” in verse 3, “younger women” in verse 4, “young men” in verse 6, “slaves” in verses 9-10, and “rulers and authorities” in Titus 3:1, and again, in a parallel to 1 Timothy 2:4, this same use of “all men” is seen in Titus 3:2. If Paul had intended the “all men” in verse 11 to mean “absolutely everyone without exception, ” then absolutely everyone without exception would also be saved, because the same grace of God that brings salvation in verse 11 also instructs “us” to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of “our” great God and Savior, Christ Jesus in verse 12 and 13; this is something that unsaved individuals do not do. It is also the same grace of God whereby Christ game Himself up for “us” to both redeem “us” and purify “us” in verse 14 (cf. Ephesians 2:8-10). Because there are many people on earth who do not do these things, and who are most assuredly not redeemed and purified, then the “all men” in verse 11 cannot possibly mean “absolutely everyone without exception, ” but is instead intended to mean the “us, ” that is, the people of God’s own possession who constitute “all men, ” that is, all kinds of men, not just Jews (a typical Pauline teaching).

As another example, in the commissioning of Paul in Acts 22:15, we see the unambiguous use of “all men” to clearly mean, “all kinds of men, ” since Paul was an Apostle to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 22:21, Ephesians 3:1-21), not to “absolutely everyone without exception.” In verse 18 we see this fact more clearly where God told Paul to “Make haste, and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about Me, ” so clearly, God did not intend him to be a witness to “absolutely everyone without exception, ” or else these people in Jerusalem at that time would be included.

The same unambiguous use is found elsewhere in Acts 21:28, Colossians 3:11, and Galatians 3:28.

[lawrencestanley]

At 25:25, you seem to be talking about subjunctive conditionals which God does not control, define, and they do not arise out of His decree to create, rather, they exist prior to creation and are true despite God not being involved in them, and they delimit God’s decree… but if God does not control them, who does? Do they exist by NO ONE’S decree? The man himself certainly cannot control the subjunctive conditionals since they exist prior to creation and are therefore true before either the man or the circumstance in which he will act even exists. Furthermore, circumstances are dependent upon the decree of God in creation, but the decree of God in creation is dependent upon how a man would act under a given set of circumstances before the circumstances even exist, so which comes first? The subjunctive conditionals that depend upon circumstances that are dependent upon God’s decree of creation, or God’s decree of creation that is dependent upon the subjunctive conditionals???

[lawrencestanley]

At 31:51 you make the assertion that "love requires libertarian freedom, " please quote the scripture that says that.

[lawrencestanley]

At 33:32, and yet no Calvinist asserts that God "forces" or "coerces" anyone to love Him any more than God "forces" or "coerces" anyone to commit acts of evil. It is a straw man.

From Dr. Erwin Lutzer,
“God works in the hearts of those He has chosen to bring them to salvation; thus, they believe in Christ because they want to. God does not bypass their wills but overcomes their blindness and grants to them the faith that they might believe. In answer to the question: did God choose me or did I choose God, the answer is that God chose you, and in response to His grace, you, in turn, chose Him. Without His choosing and calling, no one would come to Him (John 6:44). Despite the obvious tension between the two truths, the Bible teaches both God’s sovereignty over our wills, and also teaches human responsibility.”

[beowulf.reborn]

The argument that Molinism came 1500 years after Christ is so weak. For many of us, we wrestled with Calvinism and Arminianism for years, trying to line them up with what Scripture teaches, and finding that they both fell short... so we just held on to the scriptures and mystery. Then we discovered Molinism and everything (the Scripture and Mystery) fell into place. It's not something that is added onto the Scriptures, but a way of reading the Scriptures where the Scriptures are interpreted in a way that takes their totality together, without contradiction, or discordance.

I also really love the fact, that when Dr. White debated Dr. Brown on the issue of Calvinism, White started to ask Brown if he was a Molinist because Brown's views (based on Scripture alone) aligned so closely with Molinism ... Brown had to keep saying, he didn't even know what Molinism was. He went on to say, he had to google Molina after the debate to find out what White was talking about. That was the same for many of us. We saw that God is sovereign and that people are given genuine choice, in a way that does not undermine God's sovereignty, and though we did not all arrive as closely to Molinism as Brown did, that is the direction that the Scriptures were pointing us, so when we did hear of it, it was not something "new" made up by Molina, but something Biblical, explained by Molina.

[gatlas]

The text of scripture alone does not lead to the unscriptural Arminian concept of Omni-benevolence which is affirmed in this video as a priori.

[lawrencestanley]

At 21:23, regarding 2 Peter 3:9, no, NO ONE says "well, based on Calvinism, that can't be true." Instead, the universal application of the "you" is disproved by the scripture itself.

“It seems to me that the focus of the statement is not universal but is on “you” – that is, God’s people. “The Lord… is patient toward you, not wishing that any [of you] should perish.” It would be strange if his patience toward “you” did not define the “any” that comes three words later in the Greek (μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι).”

Remember, Peter is speaking to those who are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession" (2 Peter 1:9-10). To ignore this context and to insist that Peter is referring to absolutely everyone without exception is to assert universalism.

“Hence Peter is saying, “The Lord is patient toward you, not wishing that any of you should perish.” It is not awkward or unusual for a writer to refer to you as a particular group larger than those in the immediate audience, just as a sergeant should say to his platoon of marines, “Remember, you are the finest fighting force in the world, ” meaning you as marines – all marines.”

So, in context, “…God’s timing of the second coming is patient not only for the sake of Peter’s audience, but also for the sake of all the elect who are yet to be born and come to repentance.”

“The delay of the second coming century after century is resulting in millions more people perishing than if he came sooner. So to say that he delays the second coming because he does not desire people to perish implies that he is acting in a way that brings about the very opposite of what he desires. I think it is better to take our cue from 2 Peter 1:10, where Peter affirms his belief in election, and then let that be the backdrop of 2 Peter 3:9. God does not desire any of the elect to perish but to reach repentance. This, in fact, is what will happen. And when it does, the end will come (Matthew 24:14).”

John Piper, “Providence, ” page 666

[WillEhrendreich]

You should reach out to Alex O'Connor, Cosmic Skeptic, he talks about animal suffering, and I would love for you to have a debate with him on it!

[gatlas]

Your premises contain a flaw which is that God is Omni-benevolent. That God is not Omni-benevolent is the point of the Exodus narrative and Paul’s intertextual usage of the Exodus narrative at Romans 9. At Romans 9 Paul applies the Exodus narrative and God’s covenantal, particular love to the subject of eternal salvation.
Additionally, at Romans 9 Paul’s teaching does not go in the direction of Molinism but Determinism as he repeatedly piles text and thought upon text and thought increasingly affirming determinism and the logical priority of God’s will and desire before the creatures will and desire.

[lawrencestanley]

At 43:02, the problem with your argument is that you assume that it is not good that some go to hell, when in fact it is. Observe Revelation 18:20, when the saints in glory shall see the wrath of God executed on ungodly men, it will be no occasion of grief to them, but of rejoicing. The purpose that hell serves is to gladden heaven; suffering sinners serve the purpose of contributing to the bliss of redeemed sinners by glorifying the justice of God.

Again, you are appealing to your fallen, distorted emotions rather than to scripture, that is why your argument fails.

[lawrencestanley]

At 36:43, you said, "that seems far worse..." Your objections are grounded in emotions, not scripture. The truth of scripture is not decided by what "feels right" to our fallen and distorted senses of right and wrong.

[brentonstanfield]

@Freethinking Ministries - I appreciate your sincerity. But at 31:00 you claim that love requires libertarian freedom. The Bible flatly contradicts that. It tells us that God is love (1 John 4) and that love is a gift of God (see Romans 5 and Galatians 5:22-23). You are making a strong claim about libertarian freedom being a necessary condition for something that God claims HE IS and HE GIVES. Love requires God. Nothing more.

[theautodidacticlayman]

The parallel between CRT and the reduction of ALL to “all kinds” was like a diagonal katana slash exploding through a robot.

[brentonstanfield]

@Freethinking Ministries at about 44:00 you start talking about “maximally great being”. Your metric for what qualifies as “maximally great” appears to be how God relates to us. But God was maximally great without us. His maximal greatness has nothing to do with us. You are essentially saying that God’s maximal greatness depends on how he treats us. You are making God contingent upon us. But God would be maximally great if He gave us absolutely nothing and took away all He has given to us. God would be maximally great if He condemned all men to Hell. God would be maximally great REGARDLESS of what He does with us or to us. His maximal greatness NEVER depends on us or what He does with us. What you are doing is making MAN good… and saying a maximally good God would be maximally good to man. But God is good and what makes US good is God at work IN US. You have reversed it.