Stratton’s Closing Statement vs James White

I want to thank Dr. White for a stimulating debate tonight. I hope that you’ve enjoyed it as much as I have.

In closing, I’d like to draw together some threads of this debate to see if we can reach some final conclusions. Recall that I began my case by providing carefully defined key terms so that Dr. White would know exactly “what Molinists mean by that” when it comes to the issues of contention. <Click=">Click" here="here" to="to" watch="watch" the="the" full="full" debate.="debate</a>.">

My primary argument hinges upon two biblical truths: (i) God predestines all things, and (ii) humans occasionally possess libertarian freedom. I then noted that since it’s impossible to causally determine a libertarian free choice (by definition), the only option left is that God predestines libertarian free humans via middle knowledge.

In summary, all Christians should affirm Molinism for the following four reasons:

• The doctrine that humans occasionally possess libertarian freedom is supported by the biblical data.

• The doctrine of divine predestination is supported by the biblical data.

• It’s logically impossible to causally determine a libertarian free choice.

• Middle knowledge is the only way to predestine a libertarian free choice.

Let me conclude by discussing best explanations.

The inference to the best explanation is the story that explains all the facts better than any other story.

Molinism can explain the facts as to why a perfect God would allow a world suffused with all kinds of pain, evil, and suffering (moral, natural, gratuitous, or otherwise). EDD-Calvinism, however, fails to provide a satisfactory response to the Problem of Evil. Moreover, when discussing if a view is BIBLICAL, all the relevant biblical data – from Genesis to Revelation – must be taken into account and none of it can be ignored. Based upon the whole of scripture, it’s rational and responsible to conclude that God exists necessarily and is necessarily perfect in both power and knowledge. Since God’s perfection is necessary, and His decree is contingent – at least if the Potter really does have freedom – we can infer that God has the power to create the kind of free creatures described in 1 Corinthians 10:13 and also that God possesses the knowledge of how these free creatures would choose (even if God never creates them). This means, that based upon the whole of scripture, it’s rational and responsible to conclude that God possesses middle knowledge.

As I recently explained to Dr. White on Twitter:

“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, but His attributes – omnipotence and omniscience – are necessary.

Just ask yourself, which concept of God describes PERFECT power and knowledge? The Molinist view – that God can create libertarian free creatures and incorporate their free choices into His exhaustive planning of history  . . . or White’s view, where God either doesn’t have the power to create free creatures, or doesn’t know how they would freely choose, and is thus powerless to incorporate free choices of creatures into His exhaustive planning of history?

Indeed, as AW Tozer would say, White’s view of God is a “low view of God.”

In White’s book the “Forgotten Trinity,” he writes that “most importantly,” we ought to . . .

“. . . be drawn heavenward by the very attributes of God that turn the worldly person cold, and, in fact, are often the most offensive to the natural or unsaved man. Do we love God – ALL of God – including the ‘tough’ parts of His nature – or do we refuse to bow before those elements that cause us ‘problems’? If we love God . . . we will not dare to ‘edit’ Him to fit our desires.”

The irony is that White is himself editing God, thus violating his own rules from “The Forgotten Trinity,” by subtracting from God’s perfect power and knowledge in order to avoid problems with his preferred philosophical view of EDD, which is nowhere found in Scripture.

We must take the whole of scripture – to infer the BEST explanation of all the biblical data. EDD-Calvinism cannot make logical sense of ALL the biblical data . . . but guess what: Molinism can. Therefore, a rational Christian who uses the same tools to conclude the triune nature of God ought to also affirm God’s middle knowledge and be a Molinist.

I want you to ask yourself tonight, which view is more consistent with the God who you see in Scripture? According to EDD, God actually makes every-instance-of-evil happen by way of cause and effect. This includes ALL of your false theological beliefs, Satan’s rebellion, the fall of man, Hitler’s holocaust, and as Dr. White has previously affirmed . . . this even includes child rape! Moreover, according to White’s view, God actually makes the majority of humanity suffer into the eternal holocaust of Hell because God caused and determined them to possess a sinful nature.

By contrast, if Molinism is true, God does not cause and determine these things.

Let me leave you with the words of Paul once again: “I speak as to sensible people, judge for yourselves what I say.”

Notes

The extensive use of italics, ellipses, all-CAPS, and underlining served as verbal cues during the debate.

By “biblical truths,” I mean that the scriptural data is consistent with, does not contradict, and goes as far as to support the ideas that God predestines all things and that humans occasionally possess libertarian freedom. That is to say, one is rational to infer these conclusions from the whole of scripture.

It’s vital to note that my primary argument deductively concluding: “Therefore, Molinism is biblical” (answering the resolution of the debate) was shown to be sound if these four key contentions are true. I explained why each are true in my opening statement and my case and contentions were never refuted by Dr. White.

White implied 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 exhaustivepredestination of all things. But this is a fallacy because it ignores the relevant differences and game-changing properties that set Molinism apart from Calvinism. These differences can be illustrated by dwelling upon the recent Avengers movies (as I pointed out in the debate, if Jesus – not to mention Calvinist philosopher Greg Welty – can appeal to fictional characters to help people grasp ultimate reality, it seems acceptable for theologians to do the same). Note the obvious difference between Hydra causally determining the mind and thoughts of Bucky to commit evil acts (such as killing Tony Stark’s parents) vs. Doctor Strange “actualizing a world” in which he knew—that although he was not causally determining Thanos in thought or action—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. This will be explained in more detail (without the use of The Avengers) in my forthcoming (coauthored with Jacobus Erasmus) journal article in Perichoresis (May, 2022).

In his book, Knowledge of the Holy, A.W. Tozer made it clear: “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” In the preface of the same book Tozer writes: “The Church has surrendered her once lofty concept of God and has substituted for it one so low, so ignoble, as to be utterly unworthy of thinking, worshipping men…. The low view of God entertained almost universally among Christians is the cause of a hundred lesser evils everywhere among us.” I believe this debate made it clear that White’s view of God entails that God is not the necessary perfect standard of power and knowledge. Moreover, the “deity of EDD” is not the “God of truth,” but rather, a “god of mischief” who determines all people – including his own followers – to affirm false beliefs about said deity. Additionally, in White’s view, this deity of deception also causally determines all evils (for the deity’s glory) which includes when a regenerate Christian man rapes a little child. White’s view of God is the epitome of what Tozer warned against. Christians ought to reject White’s low view of God and worship a Maximally Great Being (the one true God) instead. Reject EDD and affirm Molinism. 

James, White, The Forgotten Trinity, Bethany House Publishers; Revised and Updated edition (November 5, 2019)

James White never provided a verse for exhaustive divine determinism (EDD) that could not be explained by Molinism (as defined in my opening speech). White never exegeted EDD from the text of scripture (which would have destroyed my entire case). This is because EDD is not found in scripture. White presupposes this philosophy and unwittingly imposes it upon his reading of the Bible. This is not exegesis or proper hermeneutics.

This is in reference to the argument from rationality against EDD that I provided in my opening speech based upon 1 Corinthians 10:15. This is an argument that White ignored and avoided the entire night.