Stratton vs White: Is Molinism Biblical? (Opening Speech & Post-Debate Reflections)

Good evening! To everyone watching this debate, thank you for taking theology seriously. And to Dr. James White, it’s an honor to have this conversation with you. Thank you, sir!

James and I disagree on tonight’s topic, but we have two things in common: (i), we are brothers in Christ . . . and (ii), we never have a bad hair day!

Although this is an in-house debate, “outsiders” (as Paul refers to them in Col 4:5) are watching closely. If White’s view of God prevails, atheists are justified in their non-belief. This is because in White’s view, God is not merely the “author of evil,” but He causes and determines every single evil thought and action. YES, on White’s view God actually makes evil happen by way of cause and effect.

This, leads to what is known as “the problem of evil” – the greatest objection “raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor 10:5). If Molinism is true, however, the problems of evil are defeated. So, this debate matters.

Let’s get down to business: “Is Molinism Biblical?”

Before answering that question, what does it means for a doctrine to be “biblical.” As James has written: “The only folks who are truly biblical are those who believe all the Bible has to say on a given topic.” Obviously, a doctrine can be explicitly taught in scripture. However, doctrines can also be inferred from the biblical data if . . .

• The doctrine is consistent with – and does not contradict – scripture.

• The biblical data supports the core tenets of the doctrine.

Since we’re examining scripture to find logical contradictions, we must presuppose logic and the rules of reason before examining the text. By assuming logic and reason, we can infer truths about God that are not explicitly taught in scripture. An example of this is the Trinity.

The Trinity, while not explicitly taught in scripture, is both consistent with the whole of scripture, and backed by the biblical data around God’s nature (such as the divinity of Christ, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and how they share the attributes of God). In this sense, although the word “Trinity” is found nowhere in scripture, the concept of the Trinity is biblical.

For similar reasons, if the Trinity is biblical . . . then Molinism is biblical.

What is meant by Molinism? It’s the conjunction of propositions: (i) God possesses middle knowledge and (ii) humans possess libertarian freedom.

What’s middle knowledge? According to Kirk MacGregor, middle knowledge is simply “God’s knowledge of all things that WOULD happen in every possible set of circumstances an omnipotent God COULD create.” would happen in every possible set of circumstance an omnipotent god could create.>would happen in every possible set of circumstance an omnipotent god could create.>

What’s libertarian freedom? “Referring to a person’s choice, action, evaluation, or judgment that is not causally determined by something or someone else.”

Tyson James puts it this way: “Libertarian freedom is the ability to choose such that antecedent conditions are insufficient to causally determine one’s choice.”

These definitions of libertarian freedom hold whether or not there are alternative possibilities.

However, 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.”

That’s a fancy way of saying the “ability to do otherwise.”

Determinism: The idea that antecedent conditions are causallysufficient 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.

It’s important to note that antecedent conditions are either sufficient or insufficient to causally necessitate all effects.

Comptatibilism: The thesis (held by many-not all-Calvinists) that some kind of freedom and/or moral responsibility are compatible with determinism. With EDD in mind, compatibilism is the idea that God determines all of a person’s desires, thoughts, beliefs, actions, behaviors, evaluations, and judgments . . . but somehow, the person is still “free” and/or “morally responsible” for how God made them think and act.

Predestination: The divine foreordaining of all that will happen.

To clarify, both Calvinists and Molinists affirm predestination via God’s decree prior to actual creation. The disagreement between Calvinists (like James), and Molinists (like me), is not over predestination of all created reality, but rather, HOW God predestines all created reality.

With that in mind, I’ll provide four key contentions as to why all biblically faithful Christians should affirm Molinism. As an analytic theologian, I’ll appeal to the careful definitions just provided . . . along with the God-given tools of logic and reason to make a case from the biblical text.

I will also demonstrate, since he states that ONLY God has libertarian freedom, that Dr. White’s view of exhaustive divine determinism (E.D.D. or “EDD”) not only leads to absurdities, but also provides a “deathblow” to the trustworthiness of scripture and any “assurance of salvation.”

Indeed, I contend that Molinism is biblical . . . and EDD is not biblical. Consider my argument:

1- If scripture implies both (a) humans occasionally possess libertarian freedom and (b) all human activity is predestined before creation, then scripture implies Molinism.2- Scripture implies both (a) and (b).3- Therefore, scripture implies Molinism.This syllogism is valid. So, if the premises can be supported by scripture, then any Bible-believing Christian rejecting Molinism – for any reason – seems to be in opposition to what the scriptures teach. Tonight, I’ll defend four key contentions, that – if true – demonstrate why my argument passes.

CONTENTION #1: The doctrine that humans occasionally possess libertarian freedom is supported by the biblical data.

Consider 1 Corinthians 10:13-15…

13 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. 14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.

The context has everything to do with the definition of libertarian freedom. Since God commands us to “reason together” (Isaiah 1:18), consider the following: 

1. If Christians possess the opportunity to exercise an ability to choose among a range of options each compatible with their regenerated nature at a given moment, then Christians possess libertarian freedom.

2. At the moment of temptation, Christians possess the opportunity to exercise an ability to choose between giving into temptation or taking the way of escape God promises to provide.

3. Therefore, Christians possess libertarian freedom.

Moreover, Paul follows this all-important verse with another comment heavily implying libertarian freedom. Think about 1 Corinthians 10:15: “I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.”

If something or someone other than you determines all of “your” judgments, then you cannot “judge for yourself” on any matter. If how “I” guide “my” thinking is ultimately determined by, and under the control of something or someone else, then I do not have the control condition required for rational responsibility.

To support my claim regarding 1 Corinthians 10:15, consider the following:

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 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 theological beliefs.

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

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

According to White’s EDD view, you are nothing but a passive cog (as John DePoe says) at the mercy of the whims of a “deity of deception” who determines ALL people to affirm false theological beliefs.

If the author of scripture is a deity of deception, knowing the original Greek does–not–help. Why trust what was written in the original languages if the author is untrustworthy? Moreover, if a “god of mischief” assured you of salvation . . . doyou really have assurance of salvation?

On the Molinist view, however, God is not a “deity of deception” or a “god of mischief.” No, God is a MaximallyGreatBeingand you are a free thinker who can take thoughts captive (1 Cor 10:5) before they take you (Col 2:8)! Accordingly, you are not a mere passive cog at the mercy of the whims of a deity of deception. No, if Molinism is true, you are an active and rational agent created in the likeness of a supernatural and maximally great God (by-His-grace).

God has revealed truth and desires all people to know truth (1 Tim 2:4) – not just “all kinds” of people, but ALL people! God does not determine every human to affirm false theological beliefs.

Think about it and, as Paul would say, “judge for yourselves what I say.”

The Apostle Paul (the same guy who wrote Romans 9) is clear that regenerated Christians possess a strong sense of libertarian freedom. Moses goes further and explains that even the unregenerate have the freedom to choose among alternative options.

Consider some highlights from Moses in Deuteronomy 30:10-20:

11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. . .

14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction . . .

19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.

Moses commands the Israelites to make a choice between alternative possibilities — to follow God . . . or not. They have a range of options from which to choose – between life and death, between blessings and curses. Moses pleads with them to choose life, making it clear that they actually possess the opportunity and ability to make this choice – it’s “up to them” and not determined by things external to them.

Moses is clear that they possess the ability to do it, and that it’s not even “too difficult” for them to make this choice in the actual circumstance in which they find themselves. He says, “You may do it.” This implies that you CAN do it!This is clear biblical support for libertarian freedom.

In a nutshell, I’ve offered multiple biblical texts from Paul and Moses supporting the idea that humans possess libertarian freedom. Indeed, these passages of scripture supporting libertarian freedom are much clearer than any supposed proof-text for exhaustive divine determinism.

To counter my first contention, Dr. White must exegete from scripture that all these folks described in scripture REALLY ONLY HAD ONE OPTION compatible with their natures in these specific circumstances AND that God predestines ALL things via determinism.

Now that libertarian freedom has been shown to be supported by scripture, let’s move to . . .

CONTENTION #2: The doctrine of divine predestination is supported by the biblical data.

I don’t need to share ALL the biblical data supporting exhaustive predestination in tonight’s debate, because both Dr. White and I affirm this much. The passage, however, that demands the most attention is found in a letter written by Paul. In Ephesians 1:4, we read of something that happened prior to Genesis 1:1 . . .

“ chose us in before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.”

Paul makes it clear that God . . .

“Predestined according to his purpose who works all things after the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11).

Accordingly, God doesn’t merely predestine some things, or all kinds of things, but “ALL THINGS” work according to God’s plan before creation. Paul, with his words predestined, purpose, and counsel of his will, seems to describe an exhaustive view of predestination.

This is exactly what the Molinist affirms!

Bottom line: The Bible clearly describes two things: (a) humans possess libertarian freedom and (b) all human activity is predestined before creation. So, why does scripture imply Molinism?

CONTENTION #3: It’s logically impossible to causally determine a libertarian free choice.

Recall the precise definitions offered at the beginning of my speech. With these definitions in mind, it’s just as impossible for God to determine a libertarian free choice, as it would be for God to create a married bachelor. EDD entails that prior conditions are sufficient to causally determine all effects (including all human thoughts, beliefs, choices, actions, sins, and evils), and libertarian freedom entails that prior conditions are insufficient for these things. So, if EDD is true, libertarian freedom is false, and if libertarian freedom is true, EDD is false.

So, my third contention is true by definition. This brings us to . . .

CONTENTION #4: Middle knowledge is the only way to predestine a libertarian free choice.

Since a responsible reading of Scripture implies that all things are predestined prior to creation, and that some things are free in a libertarian sense – and since it’s logically impossible to causally determine a libertarian free choice (by definition) – the only option left to consider is the Middle Knowledge option.

But why is it the case that Molinism is a biblical inference just because these contentions have been affirmed? Consider the fact that if predestination prior to creation is true, then there seems to be only two ways for God to ensure it: (i) God could determine everything to occur exactly as predestined (no libertarian freedom) or, (ii) God could use His middle knowledge to ensure what He has predestined (by creating a world in which He knew how creatures would freely choose).

But remember: we’ve already examined Scripture implying libertarian freedom!

Indeed, Moses made it clear that the Israelites had the power and opportunity to choose either life or death (and that it wasn’t “too hard” for them . . . that they COULD do it). Ezekiel 33:5 and 11 implies both God’s middle knowledge and libertarian freedom as it exemplifies the fact that God does not desire the death of the wicked and invites the wicked to choose otherwise:

“If they had heeded the warning, they would have saved themselves (implies MK). . . Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’”

If James is correct, God is imploring them to do something they cannot do. It’s like God commanding a person He determined to be born without arms to play basketball and shoot a left-handed layup – and then warning them of the consequences if they don’t. No! These people do not have to die . . . they were not determined by God . . . to reject God. That’s absurd and an irresponsible reading of the text.

Since scripture affirms libertarian freedom, we know that God does not predestine all things by way of determinism. Middle knowledge is the only option.

So . . . with my four contentions in place, it seems rational and responsible to conclude what my original argument proposes – that the Bible teaches both libertarian freedom and predestination. There is, therefore, no contradiction between being a Bible believer, and holding to Molinism. Indeed, thinking logically about ALL the biblical data, it seems to me that Molinism is the most biblically faithful (and logically consistent) view of God’s sovereignty. 

To counter my case, Dr. White must do more than cite scripture Molinists already affirm. He must show that either (i) the Bible precludes Molinism, or (ii) that it’s invalid to infer a view from scripture. Since his own published work, however, infers concepts not explicitly taught in scripture, White seems to concede this second point. This leaves him with the monumental challenge of showing that the Bible precludes Molinism by specifically dealing with my four contentions.

That’s what Dr. White’s got to do! If he does anything to the contrary, don’t be distracted. No matter what approach White takes, ask yourself: Is the Bible teaching us that God commands us to do one thing, but God determines us to do something else? Does God expect us to make decisions that we are incapable of making? Or is the Bible expecting us to make decisions . . . because we “CAN DO IT” (as Moses says)?

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.

In closing, let me reiterate that non-Christians are watching. This is important . . . because if White’s view is true – that ONLY God has libertarian freedom – then the Problem of Evil provides justification for the atheist’s non-belief since God actually makes every-instance-of-evil happen by way of cause and effect.

This includes Satan’s rebellion, the fall of man, Hitler’s holocaust, and as Dr. White has previously affirmed . . . this even includes child rape!

If Molinism is true, however, God does not cause and determine these things.

Indeed, if Molinism is true, all the problems of evil are defeated – – just like that!

Notes & Post-Debate reflections

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

Jacobus Erasmus and I have a co-authored and forthcoming article being published in Perichoresis (May of 2022). In this article, we show that Molinism can solve the hiddenness objection and in the process, it seems that we might have provided a Molinist model that handles all (?) the problems of evil.

James White, The God Who Justifies, Bethany House (p. 39)

This quote from Tyson James can be found in the Mere Molinism Study Guide.

This definition is carefully worded to negate the objection I correctly anticipated James White would make regarding the difference between categorical and conditional “abilities.” In my rebuttal, I provided the illustration of me seated on an airplane without any bass guitars on board. Although I still retain an intrinsic “ability” to play the bass guitar, I do not have an opportunity to exercise an ability to play the bass guitar in this specific circumstance.

I believe this is one of the most important points of the debate, and White never seemed to grasp it or deal with it. This is an either/or based upon the law of the excluded middle. White complained that I was just "dropping bombs" on Calvinism, but nothing was further from the truth. In fact, I granted 5-Point Calvinism for the sake of argument. I simply argued that EDD was false. In order to show that libertarian freedom is never allowed by scripture, White must exegete EDD from scripture. He failed to do so. 

James White has made it clear in recent Dividing Line video addressing Psalm 33 and Tyson James (at the 36:13 mark) that “Only God has libertarian freedom.” If this is true, it follows that God creates antecedent (prior) conditions which are causally sufficient to necessitate all effects of humanity.

If White cannot differentiate between true and false theological beliefs, then White cannot rationally affirm his theological beliefs (he can only assume and beg the question – that’s not reason to believe anything).

Some EDD advocates believe that it makes sense to say that God causally determines a person to sin, but the person really ought to have – or should have – done otherwise. Many seem to possess the intuition that this is absurd (I sure do). Indeed, I contend that no possible world exists where God causes and determines me to do X, but I really should have – or ought to have – done ~X. That doesn’t even make any sense (but EDD folks assert that God is causally determining me to affirm a false belief). Indeed, if God determined me to do X (a horrible sin), but I should or ought to have done ~X, then something seems to have gone completely wrong with God’s omnipotence. Indeed, doing ~X would be a sin if God causally determined me to do X (a horrible sin) and I failed to do X. It’s a “sin” if I do and a “sin” if I don’t. Bottom line: if ought does not imply can, then we have reason to doubt all of our most basic intuitions.

Surprisingly (in the cross-examination period), White tacitly affirmed that what he refers to as “creaturely freedom,” is equivalent to what I refer to as libertarian freedom. Indeed, that’s exactly what the “CF” in “CCFs” stands for – counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (thank you, Samuel Chan). White never explained any difference between the two terms. So, although he asserts that only God has libertarian freedom (and thus EDD is true), he also affirms that humans possess “creaturely freedom,” which I explained refers to the exact same concept as libertarian freedom (which means that EDD is false). White seems confused on this topic. As I explained above, antecedent conditions are either sufficient or insufficient to causally necessitate all effects of humanity. It’s one or the other. If EDD is true, then libertarian (or creaturely) freedom is false. If humanity occasionally possesses libertarian (or creaturely) freedom, then EDD is false.

At minimum, it’s fair to say that it’s rational and responsible to infer these two propositions from scripture.

I refer to this passage of scripture as “Molinism in a biblical nutshell.” Here we have divine counterfactual knowledge and libertarian freedom supported in one chapter. If one combines necessary omniscience (that God cannot fail to know the truth value of all propositions in any circumstance), then it logically follows that God possesses middle knowledge and Molinism is true.

It’s vital to note that White failed to refute any of my four key contentions. Thus, my primary argument deductively concluding, “Therefore, Molinism is biblical,” stands unscathed. That was the topic of the debate. Thus, although I was not as skilled in debate technique as White (this was my first debate and he’s had over 200 debates over the past 30 years) I affirmed the resolution, made my case, and defended each contention. Indeed, White performed better (perhaps even “won” the debate under normal debate rubrics), but White’s objections simply failed to defeat my case. I count that as a “win” for Team Molinism. That is to say, even if Tim Stratton "lost" the debate on style, Molinism won the day (and EDD was shown to be non-biblical and absurd). I care much more about the content than I do the style. Moving forward, however, I want to win the “style” as well.  

White never provided a verse for EDD that could not be explained by Molinism (as defined in my opening speech).

White asserted 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. Watch the debate by clicking here!