A Way of Escape, The London Baptist Confession, and the Infamous Avengers Analogy

Question

Dr. Stratton, In your debate with James White you made three claims that demand further clarification. First, you appealed to 1 Corinthians 10:13 as biblical support for libertarian freedom. Second, you claimed that the London Baptist Confession of Faith affirms libertarian freedom. Third, regarding the Problem of  Evil, you appealed to The Avengers in an attempt to show that your Molinist theodicy that God is certain evil will occur is superior to White's view where God causally determines and necessitates all evil. Can you please expand upon these three points? - Eric

Dr. Tim's Response

I would be happy to provide clarification on these three points. Before I begin, however, let me share the precise definitions of libertarian freedom offered in my opening statement:

“Referring to a person’s choice, action, evaluation, or judgment that is not

causally determined

by something or someone else.” “. . . the ability to choose such that antecedent conditions are

insufficient

to causally determine one’s choice.”

I pointed out that these definitions of libertarian freedom hold whether or not there are

alternative

possibilities. However, I added the important caveat:

"if one

does

possess opportunities to choose among alternative possibilities in the real world, then one is not determined by something or someone else."

With biblical data in mind, we can also understand libertarian freedom in this manner:

“The opportunity to exercise an ability to choose between at least two options,

each of which is compatible

with one’s nature in a circumstance where the prior conditions are

insufficient

to causally determine the agent’s choice.”

With libertarian freedom defined, consider the following passage of scripture.

1 Corinthians 10:13

The Apostle Paul writes,

“No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.”

What is highly relevant is Paul’s use of the words "beyond your ability," "with the temptation

will

also

provide the way of escape," and "that you may be able to endure it." With the word “also” we see at least two options each compatible with a Christian’s regenerated nature in a specific time and place (a circumstance) in the actual world. When tempted, a Christian can sin, but also has the power to take the way of escape God promises to provide. This promise provides amazing hope to those who follow Christ -- when faced with the temptation to sin, we do not have to sin. Robertson and Plummer note that the translation of “a way to escape (AV.) ignores the article before ἔκβασιν

, ‘the necessary way of escape,’ the one suitable for such a difficulty. The σὺν

and the articles imply that temptations and possibilities of escape always go in pairs: there is no πειρασμῷ

without its proper ἔκβασιν, for these pairs are arranged by God, who permits no unfairness. He knows the powers with which He has endowed us, and how much pressure they can withstand. He will not leave us to become the victims of circumstances which He has Himself ordered for us . . . The power to endure is given σὺν τῷ πειρασμῷ

, the endurance is not given; that depends on ourselves” (Robertson and Plummer,

1 Corinthians

, 209–10). Recall, as I explained above (and in my opening speech), that for one to be free in the libertarian sense, one's choice, action, evaluation, or judgment is not

causally determined

by something or someone else. All this means is that antecedent external conditions were insufficient to causally necessitate the person's choice. God, after all, is not causally determined by antecedent external conditions to be loving even though God cannot NOT be perfectly loving (omni-benevolent). Thus, God demonstrates that libertarian freedom does not necessitate alternative possibilities or "pairs." However, if one does possess opportunities to choose among alternative possibilities (at least two options) in the actual world, then we know that one is not causally determined by something or someone else (at least in this particular circumstance). That is to say, alternative possibilities are not

essential

for libertarian freedom, but if God's inspired Word reveals that humans occasionally possess alternative possibilities in specific circumstances, then we know that humans occasionally possess libertarian freedom (and thus, exhaustive divine determinism is both false and unbiblical). Paul's use of the word

“may”

implies that a Christian

can

sin, but we do not have to (sin is not necessary). Indeed, as Christians we all know this is true by way of experience. When we face an opportunity sin, and we also see an opportunity to flee from evil (a "pair" of options) but sin anyway, we feel the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Why are we convicted? Because we

could have refrained

from sin and taken the way of escape God promises to provide; however, we failed to do so. This is the epitome of libertarian freedom. The regenerate Christian sinned, but he/she could have done otherwise in that exact circumstance. Paul is telling regenerate Christians that when they are in a specific time and place where they are faced with the temptation to commit a particular sin, God promises to provide a way of escape in that same circumstance. Thus, in one circumstance a regenerate Christian has at least two alternative choice options that are EACH compatible with their regenerated nature (if one does not have access to this pair of options, then one is not a regenerate Christian). Based upon the definitions offered above, this is exactly what we mean by libertarian freedom. Moreover, it also suggests (one is rational to infer it) that when some Christian sins he/she is genuinely responsible in a desert sense because he/she actually

COULD

have done otherwise and taken the way of escape God provided. Don’t say “the devil made me do it" and whatever you do, don’t blame it on God and say that He causally determined you to sin. No . . . take responsibility. YOU DID IT – and you could have done otherwise. That is definitely a common sense understanding of the passage. It seems extremely odd that some folks are so devoted to

exhaustive

divine determinism (EDD) -- a concept not found in scripture -- that they bend over backwards to twist common sense interpretations from the Bible so they can keep their odd philosophy of EDD. Consider the following from the Exhaustive Divine Determinism Version (EDDV):

“No temptation has overtaken you but such as God has unconditionally and irresistibly caused you to be tempted by, despite James 1:13’s insistence that God does not tempt anyone

, and such as is common to man; and even though I speak of no temptation but such as is common to man, and it would sound like I am talking about any and every temptation you might experience, I really only mean the one specific temptation to apostasy; and hey, don’t worry, though every sin you commit was unconditionally decreed by God, and you have no choice but to commit every sin that you do because God has unconditionally causally determined you to do it, God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able only in the case of apostasy, because after all, he is the one unconditionally and irresistibly causing you to be tempted, but with the temptation will also irresistibly causally determine you to take the way of escape provided for you, but only when it concerns apostasy; other than that one specific temptation to sin, you’re on your own, but at least in that one type of temptation, it is so that you cannot possibly fail to endure it

” (1 Cor. 10:13 EDDV).

The EDDV interpretation of 1 Cor 10:13 is absurd and ought to be rejected by anyone who seeks to handle the Word of God carefully and with respect. Moreover, if the clear and common sense understanding of 1 Cor 10:13 can be ignored by the determinist, then libertarians are not obligated to consider any of the determinist's supposed “proof texts” to the contrary (which always seem to be compatible with Molinism). Speaking of proof texts, at the end of my opening statements I offered the following challenge to James White:

"I challenge Dr. White to produce one-single-Bible verse (or passage) in support of EDD that cannot be just as easily – or better explained – by Molinism."

We are all still waiting and looking forward to his response.

The London Baptist Confession of Faith

Recall the definitions of determinism I offered in the debate:

Determinism

: 

The idea that antecedent conditions are causally sufficient for an effect (a.k.a., “causal determinism”).

Exhaustive divine determinism (EDD)

:

 the idea that God determines all effects—especially all things about humanity, which would include all desires, thoughts, beliefs, actions, behaviors, evaluations, and judgments.

I added the important note:

"It’s important to note that antecedent conditions are either

sufficient

or

insufficient

to causally necessitate all effects."

With precise definitions in mind, now review the LBCF 9:1-2 carefully:

1- God hath endued the will of man with that natural

liberty

and

power

of acting upon choice, that it is neither

forced

, nor by any

necessity

of nature

determined

to do good

or 

evil

(Matthew 17:12; James 1:14; Deuteronomy 30:19). The word “liberty” and "libertarian" are derived from the Latin word

libertas

. When the document describes the "power" to choose, it clarifies that this choice is not "forced" (antecedent conditions are not causally sufficient to

necessitate

an effect). Moreover, if that’s not clear enough, the LBCF notes that this choice is not

necessitated

or

determined

to do one thing (good) or the other (evil). This is exactly what is meant by libertarian freedom. Interestingly, during the cross examination, Dr. White claimed that the LBCF does not refer to the word "force." He was obviously mistaken. Consider Merriam Webster's definition of "force":

While I affirm all three definitions, the third definition is exactly what I was referring to in the debate --

"to make or cause especially through natural or logical necessity." 

We are discussing antecedent conditions being sufficient to causally

necessitate

an effect. If God creates and sets up the antecedent conditions which are causally sufficient to

necessitate

a person's choice, then the person's choice was "forced" by God. But the London Baptist Confession says that Adam's choice to disobey God was not forced via antecedent conditions. This means that Adam's choice was free in the libertarian sense. I am still interested to see how Dr. White would distinguish between the kind of freedom that “pre-fall Adam” possessed and the concept of libertarian freedom I support. Despite White's scruples (along with many of his fellow determinists), these different terms seem to be the exact same concept. I call it “libertarian freedom,” White refers to it “creaturely freedom.” Examine the second point of the ninth chapter of the LBCF:

2- Man, in his state of innocency, had

freedom and power

to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he

might

fall from it

(Ecclesiastes 7:29; Genesis 3:6). So, if the first point was not clear enough, the second point clarifies that Adam had the freedom and power to do the good, but was “unstable” (not causally determined to do good) so that he

might

fall into sin. This sure seems like an ability to do otherwise, does it not? However, prior to creation an omniscient God knows all that could (or "might") occur and all that

would

happen

if

God creates Adam with libertarian freedom and places Adam in a non-causally determined circumstance. Thus, God can still

predestine

the fall of Adam without

making

him do it by way of cause and effect. God simply created a world – with the endgame in mind – in which He knew how Adam would freely choose. Do not miss the fact that one can be well within the boundaries of Reformed theology and reject EDD. Consider WGT Shedd:

“In respect to its having no sinful antecedent out of which it is made, sin is origination ex nihilo. Sin is the beginning of something from nothing, and there is this resemblance between it and creation proper. In holy Adam, there was no sinful inclination or corruption that prompted the first transgression. Adam started the wicked inclination itself ex nihilo, by a causative act of self-determination.”

This is exactly what we mean by libertarian freedom. Shedd rejects EDD. Bottom line: one can be well-within the boundaries of Reformed theology and disagree with James White on this topic (just as many of Reformed scholars do). If pre-fall Adam possessed libertarian freedom, then EDD is false because the "E" of EDD must be rejected. Moreover, and more importantly, if God never gained this knowledge of the free fall of Adam, then God possesses middle knowledge and some flavor of Molinism is true. If God did not know how libertarian/creaturely free pre-fall Adam would choose, then Open Theism is true. Based upon the law of the excluded middle, it is one or the other. So, it seems that if James White wants to avoid Open Theism, then he must affirm Molinism. If he continues to reject Molinism, however, then James White tacitly affirms Open Theism.

The Avengers Analogy

Contrary to the claims of many of White’s disciples across social media, it is vital to remember that my case affirming the resolution of the debate –

Is Molinism Biblical?

– had absolutely nothing to do with The Avengers. My case was supported by God's inspired Word and the God-given tools of logic and reason. Nothing more, nothing less. The Avengers illustration was raised in the cross-examination portion of the debate when White attempted to argue that Molinism is “just as bad” as Calvinism because God – by way of middle knowledge – also predestines all things. I countered by explaining that this commits what I refer to as the “Bullet Bill Fallacy” by asserting that God is “just as bad” according to the Molinist view as He is on the Calvinist view since both views affirm

exhaustive

predestination

of all things. But this is a fallacy because it ignores the relevant differences and game-changing properties that set Molinism apart from Calvinism.

Namely, according to Molinism, absolutely nothing prevented Bullet Bill from doing otherwise.

According to EDD-Calvinism, God prevented Bullet Bill from doing otherwise by causally determining him to do evil (that which does not resemble God's nature). This seems to be a significant difference. These differences are illustrated by dwelling upon the recent Avengers movies. As I pointed out in the debate, if Jesus can appeal to fictional characters to help people grasp ultimate reality, it seems acceptable for modern-day theologians to do the same. Interestingly, Calvinist philosopher Greg Welty first appealed to "Bullet Bill" – a fictional character from the Mario Brothers video game – to make the point that Molinism was "just as bad" as Calvinism. As I illustrated in the debate, there seems to be an intuitive and obvious difference between Hydra

predestining

the thoughts and beliefs of Bucky to commit evil acts by way of causal determination vs. Doctor Strange

predestining

and “actualizing a world” in which he knew evil would be committed by agents whom Doctor Strange is not causally determining via mind control. Hydra mind-controlled Bucky's thoughts which were sufficient to causally determine him to assassinate Tony Stark's parents (Hydra prevented Bucky from doing otherwise). Captain America correctly realized that Bucky ought not be blamed (Bucky was a victim), Hydra was morally responsible. Did Captain America (or anyone else for that matter) blame Doctor Strange for the evil committed by Thanos in

Endgame

? No, because although Strange actualized a world in which he knew that many evils would occur (such as the deaths of Natasha Romanav and Tony Stark), Strange did not causally determine anyone's thoughts, beliefs, actions, or behaviors. Even though Strange was not causally determining Thanos in thought or action (he was not preventing Thanos from thinking or doing otherwise) -- Strange knew that Thanos would freely choose to commit evil and cause much suffering. However, with the “endgame” in mind, it’s all worth it because evil is eventually defeated and the saints are raised! This is why

everyone knows

that although both “predestined acts of evil” Hydra is to be blamed, but Doctor Strange is the HERO who saved the Marvel Comics Universe (and should be praised). If we apply this same intuition to the EDD vs libertarian freedom debate, reality becomes clear. As I recently explained, for all we know, the actual world is the best feasible freedom-permitting world, even with all of its moral, natural, and gratuitous evils, as well as its degrees of divine hiddenness. For example: it is

possible

that the actual world is the one feasible freedom-permitting circumstance where evil is ultimately defeated and all

are saved (the bracketed words leave room for

hopeful

universalism). If this specific feasible “maximal harvest world” exists, then a perfectly powerful, wise, and loving God would either create it—no matter how much finite suffering, evil, or divine hiddenness existed—or refrain from creation altogether. I am grateful that God -- a perfectly powerful, wise, and loving God -- created this world and am learning (being prepared) how to think and act in an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison (2 Corinthians 4:17). Indeed, God is worthy of  worship and ought to be praised! Bottom line: this is why The Avengers analogy works and why I will continue to use it to defeat

all

the problems of evil through the lens of Molinism.

Conclusion

In summary, it is rational and responsible to infer that regenerate Christ followers possess libertarian freedom from 1 Corinthians 10:13 (as well as other passages of scripture). Thus, it is rational to reject EDD. Moreover, based upon the LBCF 9:1-2, we can infer that pre-fall Adam possessed libertarian freedom. This provides additional reason to reject EDD. Finally, the Avengers analogy adequately demonstrates why Molinism is not “as bad” as EDD-Calvinism. This is because EDD is relevantly analogous to Hydra (the villain who ought to be blamed) and Molinism is relevantly analogous to Doctor Strange (the hero who ought to be praised). Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18), Dr. Tim Stratton

Notes

Consider the absurdity of the statement, “God causally determined me to sin.” The definition of

sin

is to “miss the mark.” However, if God causally determined you to hit anything other than the “bull’s eye,” then you hit the exact mark that God causally determined and wanted you to hit. If EDD is true, and God determined you to miss the mark (the bull’s eye), but you hit the bull’s eye anyway, then not only has something gone terribly wrong, but by hitting the mark you also missed the mark. Moreover, if EDD is true, when you miss the bull’s eye, you actually hit the exact mark God desired. Credit to Ben Henshaw. This is not a real version of the Bible. It is sarcasm used to illuminate truth. This frames the debate into an “either/or” based upon the law of the excluded middle. Thus, if any human has ever made one libertarian free choice, then EDD is false. If EDD is true, then no human has ever made a libertarian free choice. This is why it was perfectly acceptable, despite Dr. White's complaints, for me to attack EDD in support of libertarian freedom (the first of my key contentions). Dr. White and many other determinists provide a red herring by adding the phrase “against one’s will” after the word force. This is irrelevant as the LBCF says nothing about being forced

against one’s will

(which, according to EDD is also determined by God). Moreover, the libertarian is not discussing this either. We are simply noting that if God creates antecedent conditions sufficient to causally necessitate Adam’s fall, then God has

forced

Adam’s fall. The framers of the LBCF, along with Molinists, reject this view. White’s “comeback” to my Avenger’s analogy was to quip, “But Thanos isn’t in the Bible” (to the roar of the Calvinist crowd). I wonder why he has not responded to Greg Welty in similar fashion and said, “But Bullet Bill isn’t in the Bible!” See Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism as well as the new “Mere Molinism Study Guide” for additional passages of scripture implying libertarian freedom.