A Public Apologia to James White

The Plea for an Apology

"That particular argument I find deeply offensive. It is grossly unbiblical! It is not derived from any kind of biblical thought whatsoever. It is a philosophical trap that should not suggest itself to any biblically literate Christian. So yes, Dr. Stratton, I call upon you to recognize the foolishness of that argument… to lay it aside, and… publicly say, 'I am sorry, I never should have developed an argument like that!'"

- Dr. James White

Dr. Stratton’s Apologia

*Click here to view the slightly different but corresponding video to this article (and check out Dr. White's awesome arm-sleeve tatts)!

Dr. White is referring to the argument I offered based on Paul's words in 1 Corinthians. In my opening statement I advanced an argument deductively concluding the resolution: “Therefore, Molinism is biblical.” From that point, I explained that if White’s view – that only God has libertarian freedom and humans never possess libertarian freedom – then we are left with an “either/or” based upon the logical law of the excluded middle. That is to say, if White’s view of exhaustive divine determination (EDD) is true, then no human has ever freely chosen, evaluated, or judged (in a libertarian sense) “for themselves” (1 Cor 10:15). However, if only one person has ever freely chosen, evaluated, or judged for themselves, then EDD is false. To defend my first key contention, “the doctrine that humans occasionally possess libertarian freedom is supported by the biblical data,” I was free to attack EDD to make a biblical case for libertarian freedom (a key ingredient of Molinism).

Consider a theological version of the FreeThinking Argument supporting my first key contention (this argument assumes White is a mature Christian theologian):

1. If God determines White to affirm false belief X (in the actual world), then White does not possess the opportunity to exercise an ability to infer a better or true belief about X (in the actual world).

2. If EDD is true, then God determines all Christians (including White) to affirm false theological beliefs (no one’s theology is infallible).

3. If God determines all Christians to affirm some false theological beliefs, then White stands in no position to know which of his inferred theological affirmations are true and which are false.

4. If White does not stand in a position to rationally affirm his theological beliefs, then White possesses a defeater against (a reason to doubt) his inferred theological beliefs.

5. If White possesses reason to doubt his inferred theological beliefs, then White cannot rationally affirm his theological beliefs.

6. Therefore, if EDD is true, White cannot rationally affirm his inferred theological beliefs.

Although I could have added the premise, "White can rationally affirm his inferred theological beliefs," and then deductively concluded, "Therefore, EDD is false," for the sake of time I merely explained that this argument demonstrates that if EDD is true, then it’s impossible to rationally infer true beliefs and “judge for yourselves” as Paul commands in 1 Corinthians 10:15. No, if God determines you to affirm a false belief there’s nothing you can do about it. No matter how hard you try, you cannot “judge for yourself” and infer the truth.

That’s absurd!

Moreover, if EDD is true and you cannot “judge for yourselves,” then you cannot rationally affirm theological claims of knowledge. Inferring true beliefs over false ones and rationally affirming claims of knowledge are vital attributes of a rationally responsible person. This active use of reason is illusory if EDD is true, and thus, if EDD is true then humanity is not rationally responsible for anything we passively think and are ultimately determined to believe.

I also pointed out that this leads to God being a “deity of deception.” If this is the case, then, I noted that we cannot trust scripture and we lose assurance of salvation.

Although it was White’s responsibility, he did not attempt to interact with my opening arguments during the debate. Based upon debate rules, the one affirming the negative position (White) must interact and debunk the case made by the one affirming the resolution (Stratton). Conveniently, however, after the debate was over, Dr. White attempted to interact with one of my arguments against his view (and supporting my primary argument) in a video entitled “Road Trip Radio Free Geneva!” 

In fact, in this video, Dr. White demanded that I apologize to the world for the case I offered in my opening statement. Instead of an apology, allow me to offer additional arguments supporting my case that humans can never keep the command of the apostle Paul and reasonably “judge for yourselves” on any matter (including this one) if EDD is true.

A Short Sidebar

Since the resolution of the debate was "Is Molinism Biblical?" I could not attack Calvinism directly (in fact, I granted 5-Point Calvinism for the sake of argument during the debate). I merely attacked EDD, because if EDD is true, then no one has ever made a libertarian free choice. If one person has ever made one libertarian free choice in the history of humanity, then EDD is false. White conflated EDD with Calvinism and complained that I was "dropping bombs on Calvinism." I did no such thing.  However, now that the debate is over, if it is true that Calvinism necessarily entails EDD (in my book I note that Calvinists Crisp, Koukl, and Muller disagree), then consider this bomb dropped on Calvinism:

1- Calvinism entails exhaustive divine determination (EDD).

2- EDD is false.

3- Therefore, Calvinism is false. 

The first premise is supported by many Calvinists (so we will take their word for it). Not only has Guillaume Bignon made it clear that he believes God determines all things, Matthew J. Hart writes,

“Calvinists, I shall assume, are theological determinists. They hold that God causes every contingent event, either directly or indirectly.” (Calvinism and the Problem of Evil, p. 248)

In the footnotes Hart points out that some might wish to break ranks and affirm a flavor of Calvinism while denying this exhaustive divine deterministic view that is typically associated with Calvinism. He notes that Paul Helm is the leading Calvinistic philosopher today and that Helm is also a theological determinist. In my experience, it is fair to say that the vast majority of informed Calvinists would affirm the first premise. 

The next premise is the key premise. Why think the second premise is true? Because an entailment of EDD is that God is a deity of deception. Let me explain. 

I gave my life to Jesus Christ when I was three years old (right before my fourth birthday) at 711 Morton Street in Holdrege, Nebraska. I still remember it vividly as it was around the same time the first Star Wars movie was released in 1977 (click here to read that story). In my early twenties I committed my life to ministry (at a DC Talk concert after hearing the song Jesus Freak). At this point I started studying theology seriously. Ultimately, after years of study, I embraced Calvinism. I was not merely a five-point Calvinist. I affirmed EDD-Calvinism. 

I was cage stage! I was willing to fight with anyone who would dare disrespect the name of Calvin -- including my wife (click here to read that story). Years later I realized the error of my ways (I do owe a public apology to Tia Stratton)! Obviously, today I reject Calvinism with every fiber of my existence. 

Here's the thing: If EDD is false -- and it's true that Christians can freely think in the libertarian sense -- then theologians who reject their libertarian freedom to think and reason are simply not being careful thinkers. They are poor theologians who have no excuse (perhaps they are letting their greatest desires of determinism take them captive). If EDD is true, however, then God determined Tim Stratton, a sincere Christ follower who deeply loves each person of the Trinity, to affirm true beliefs in the past, but then God determined me (a hard-core Christian who is willing to live and die for the gospel) to affirm false beliefs about God today.  Heck, I have a great excuse. In fact, I have the BEST excuse for being wrong! However, since this view entails that God is a deity of deception (even if he's got "morally sufficient reasons" for deceiving those who love and follow him) this provides reason to affirm premise (2) of the above argument. EDD is false. 

Deity of Deception Arguments

1. For any Christian c, there is at least one belief b such that b is false and c affirms b.

2. If EDD is true, then, for any Christian c and any belief b, if c affirms b, then God determines c to affirm b.

3. Therefore, if EDD is true, then, for any Christian c, there is at least one belief b such that b is false, c affirms b, and God determines c to affirm b. 

Clearly, the above conclusion implies that, if EDD is true, then God determines all Christ followers to affirm at least one false theological belief (and we stand in no position to know which of our determined beliefs are true or false). Thus, it seems that the deity of EDD is anything but the “God of truth.”

With that in mind an additional argument arises:

1. If God determines all Christians to affirm false theological beliefs, then God is a deity of deception.

2. If a deity of deception inspired scripture, then we have reason to doubt scripture. 

3. Scripture is trustworthy. 

4. Therefore, God is not a deity of deception. 

5. Therefore, God does not determine all Christians to affirm false theological beliefs. 

6. Therefore, God does not determine all things.

7. Therefore, EDD is false. 

And we can add the premise: "Calvinism entails EDD," reaching the deductive conclusion, "Therefore, Calvinism is false." 

Although White ignored my original argument in his rebuttal, I raised the issue again in the cross-examination portion of the debate. In response Dr. White replied:

“Your argument, Tim, would require you to state that the moment you were converted . . . that you had to be given perfect theology.”

Dr. White misses the point entirely. I countered:

“What follows is, if God causally determines everything then He causes you to affirm false theological beliefs about him.”

At that moment, the moderator said that my time was up and White was “saved by the bell.” To be clear, he could have used his time to answer my challenge but instead continued to evade my case.

Bottom line: if God causally determines all things, then this includes all of Dr. White’s current beliefs. White admitted that after years of study he does not possess perfect theology. If that’s the case, then White affirms at least one false theological belief. It follows that if White’s view of EDD is true, then God has determined James White — a mature Christian theologian — to study scripture and affirm at least one, if not multitudes, of false beliefs about God. 

Presupposing Perfection

Although we have good reason to conclude that God is a maximally great being, Dr. White -- as a self-professed presuppositional apologist (a.k.a., “presupper”) -- must not merely presuppose the reliability of scripture, the presupper must presuppose that the author of scripture is a perfect and maximally great being! I agree with the presupper that the existence of God is a necessary condition in order for humans to possess the ability to rationally infer and affirm claims of knowledge. In fact, I have an entire argument – the FreeThinking Argument Against Naturalism – concluding exactly what the presupper presupposes.

But why presuppose what one can logically conclude? That makes no sense to me.

The presupper needs to do more than merely presuppose the existence of God in order to explain their rationality. They must presuppose that God is a maximally great being. They must presuppose that God is “the God of TRUTH” (as James White says in The God Who Justifies) and presuppose that God is anything but a “deity of deception” or a “god of mischief” who causally determines all of his committed followers to affirm and advance false beliefs about reality.

If one presupposes EDD (as opposed to a maximally great being), then the presupper ultimately destroys the exact thing they are trying to explain – human rationality. If one presupposes that The Bible is reliable, but then interprets scripture in such a way that leads to the conclusion that the author of scripture is a deity of deception, then welcome to self-destruction.

Bottom line: Presup + EDD = EPIC FAILURE!

The Libertarian Freedom to Think, Judge, and Reason

With the above argument in mind, if God does not always determine our thoughts and beliefs, and God created us with the supernatural ability to take thoughts captive (2 Cor 10:5) before they take us (Col 2:8), then, we are free to think and “judge for ourselves” (1 Cor 10:15) as we “reason together” (Isaiah 1:18) to ultimately choose our beliefs in a libertarian sense. Moreover, since God is not a deity of deception and we are free to think and reason together, a question arises: Was God surprised or did He ever gain knowledge of how creatures would freely think and reason as humans ultimately chose our beliefs in a libertarian sense? That is to say, prior to the decree and foundations of the world, did God possess knowledge of these libertarian thoughts? Did God predestine these free thinkers?

In our debate, James White said this kind of question is a “nonsense question.” The fact of the matter is that White’s response is a nonsense answer. Indeed, if logically prior to the decree and foundations of the world God did not know how humans would freely think in a libertarian sense, then some flavor of Open Theism is true. However, if an omniscient God does possess perfect knowledge of all propositions logically prior to the decree and foundations of the world, then some flavor of Molinism is true.

It’s either one or the other.

Conclusion

In his commitment to reject Molinism, James White exclaims that God and only God possesses libertarian freedom. This means that antecedent conditions (which are all created by and up to God) are sufficient to necessitate all effects – including all human thoughts, beliefs, evaluations, and judgments (not to mention all sins and evils). This means that God determines all human thoughts, beliefs, evaluations, and judgments. Thus, according to James White, humanity is never free to think, judge for ourselves, or reason to infer better beliefs when God determines every human (including all Calvinists) to affirm false theological beliefs. This provides an undercutting defeater to all of Dr. White’s theological beliefs (including his belief that humans do not possess libertarian freedom). As Dr. Jim Slagle notes:

The claim, recall, is that there must be an explanation for a belief, it must be a good explanation, and it must be my explanation. But if the determining factors are extrinsic to the individual (not to the belief), then it is difficult to see how it could be my explanation as opposed to just an explanation. In order for it to be my explanation, I have to accept it. If my acceptance is also determined by extrinsic forces (God in our current example), then in what sense is it my explanation? In fact, how could the resulting state be called a “belief” at all? Belief seems to involve both reception of information and some level of assent to or approval of it. After all, we often receive information that we do not subsequently believe, so clearly mere reception of information is an insufficient definition of belief. And assent or approval in turn seems to intrinsically involve the concept of self-origination. I may not have to originate the explanation of the belief, but I do have to make whatever explanation there is my explanation for believing it. This would suggest that determinism is incompatible with belief, and so belief in determinism, including theistic determinism, is self-defeating (The Epistemological Skyhook, p. 206).

Not only is White’s belief in exhaustive divine determination self-defeating, he also faces another monumental problem. Although he bends over backwards in an attempt to reject the occasional libertarian freedom of humanity (which is implied by both the London Baptist Confession of Faith and by God's inspired Word) he seems to have unwittingly affirmed it. Moreover, based upon the above arguments, in order to escape the problems, which I’ve demonstrated follow from EDD, White must affirm libertarian freedom (at least on occasion).

This leaves him two and only two options: James White is either a Molinist or he is an Open Theist.  

Bottom line: Thinking theo-logically entails thinking logically about God. This is the highest example of striving to love God with all of one's mind (Luke 10:27). Thus, no one should ever apologize for offering a valid and deductive syllogism -- especially one that is supported by scripture. Of course, if one of the premises can be shown to be false, then the one offering the argument should concede and simply admit the argument he previously thought was good, upon further review is not sound. But no apology is warranted (especially if God is determining the person to infer and affirm false beliefs). 

If anything, Dr. White should apologize for not interacting with my specific argument(s) during the debate, and then refusing to have further discussion after he makes videos demanding an apology. 

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton

Notes

Scripture does speak of God sending a “spirit of delusion” as an act of judgment to those who have already chosen to reject God. Nowhere in scripture do we see God causally determining those who love, follow, and worship God to affirm false beliefs about reality. With that said, consider the absurdity of God sending a spirit of delusion as an act of judgment against those whom He had already causally determined to reject Him. God would be judging these poor folks for doing exactly what God causally determined them to do. Passages like these make much more sense if those in judgment have freely – in a libertarian sense – chose to reject God, and thus, merit their just deserts.

“Any Christian C” refers to a “mature believer.” This would exclude a toddler who, for example, might only affirm two theological beliefs that both happen to be true. This would include (but not be limited to) those who hold doctorates in theology (like James White and myself).

With this in mind, consider White’s plea when he says: “I call upon you to recognize the foolishness of argument!” How can I do such a thing if God has causally determined me to believe that my argument is a great argument? If God determines me to affirm a false belief, there is nothing White (or anyone else can do) to change what God causally determines. Ultimately, if I am wrong, it is because God is causally determining me to be wrong (I have the BEST excuse). If White is wrong, however, it is because he is failing to be a careful theological thinker – although he could have done otherwise (he has NO excuse)!

Let me state it this way for clarity: “What follows is, if God causally determines everything then He causes you to affirm false beliefs about him.”

A third option of randomness is possible. However, if God created human beings in His supernatural image and likeness, and endowed mankind with the supernatural power to take thoughts captive (2 Cor 10:5) before they take us (Col 2:8), then our thoughts and ensuing beliefs are not random, but can be (and ought to be) based upon careful reasoning and free thinking in a libertarian sense.

In philosophical discussions, this is referred to as indirect doxastic voluntarism (See, Moreland and Craig, Philosophical Foundations. 87).

It seems to me that White thinks that God’s middle knowledge must be explained via an external cause. I explained in the debate that divine middle knowledge is not explained by anything external to God, but rather, it is explained by a necessity of God’s perfect nature. I made it clear: “If perfect power and perfect knowledge are necessary attributes of God, then middle knowledge comes along for the ride.” This is because God’s decree is contingent (logically secondary), but His attributes – omnipotence and omniscience – are necessary (logically primary).