This became clear to me during his exchanges with Leighton Flowers and Ken Wilson.

When you have already decided on a worldview, and your stance is "This is absolutely %💯 true, and nothing will change my mind", it would be so incredibly easy to respect and honor and believe JW. It's awful. This happens many times outside of theology, and I would be scared to death to see the stats on how many people hold someone similar in the same regard, in and out of theology...

@@bayesianhulk although James White isn’t a good representative of the Reformed Tradition regarding these issues, it’s quite amazing that you would actually imply that Wilson and Flowers are anything more than absolute jokes

@@ThaNewDealer723 Bingo. I'm much more impressed when someone respects their opponents rather than the guy who just confirms everything they already believe.

How can it be clear that all people were created to have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ when the vast majority of human history occurred before Jesus Christ was born and of those who have lived after he was born huge numbers of them never hear the gospel? Quote from Luther: I hear that here and there among the nobles and persons of importance vicious statements are being spread abroad concerning predestination or God’s foreknowledge. For this is what they say: ‘If I am predestined, I shall be saved, whether I do good or evil. If I am not predestined, I shall be condemned regardless of my works.’ . . . If the statements are true, as they, of course, think, then the incarnation of the Son of God, His suffering and resurrection, and all that He did for the salvation of the world are done away with completely. What will the prophets and all Holy Scripture help? What will the sacraments help? The universally acknowledged founder of the reformation condemned the Calvinist understanding of soteriology. He calls it vicious and says it does away with Jesus Christ. Does that sound like he supported Calvinism to you? I think you need to do some research before making claims like "all reformed people historically have had Calvinist soteriology". That's blatantly false.

Greeting Jack. Exegetically, how does one see that a compatibilist reading of duty commands and culpability better fits selected portions of Scripture? Kind regards.

Thank you! Please help to circulate this video. I agree with you that Ryan should publish this critique.

@@FreethinkingMinistries 2x agreed ! My only critique of RT Mullins comes under the alleged scriptural underdetermination of Middle Knowledge. In my view, this is not the case. Greetings from one who was walked out of Calvinism though exegesis and not Philosophy.

@@Z__K217 I'd love to hear more about your story!

@@FreethinkingMinistries Happily. If I may, I will submit a message in your website. Kind regards.

Dr. Kurt Jaros of Veracity Hill. Kurt’s paper has not yet been published. However, he presented it to a room full of philosophers and theologians at the ETS conference in TX last month (I was in attendance). His paper will be published in the future.

@@FreethinkingMinistries Ahhh,, thank you, I'll have to remember to keep an eye out for that, it sounded really interesting.

Dr. Seuss.

Not knowing HOW God is omniscient is not a good reason to reject it. I know some Christians who think that since they cannot figure out HOW God created a physical universe from nothing -- ex nihilo -- that we must conclude that physical reality does not actually exist (i.e., that physical reality is illusory -- like the Matrix). I think that's a huge mistake. We don't need to know the "how." Similarly, we don't need to know the HOW God has access to all knowledge. It might be counterintuitive, but it is not logically incoherent. Many things about the God revealed in Scripture are counterintuitive, but never logically incoherent.

God is not in time "waiting", it's a done deal from God's perspective... "Those He justified, them He also glorified"...past tense.

@@FreethinkingMinistries It seems to me that for a thing to be known, it has to actually be out there to be known. If the future is out there to be known, that's b-theory. Moreover, I find open thiesm to be far more consistent with the scriptures.

@@delbert372 Firstly, I don't think that's what that scripture is talking about. 2ndly, if time is a 'done deal' for God, that is b-theory (all of tine exists simultaneously before God, but we just experience it as passing. Meaning that the rape victim is eternally being raped in some quadrant of spacetime).

Greetings. Knowledge of a fact and knowledge of what explains the structure of the fact (such that the fact is known) are two different phenomena. To hold explanation in judgement upon a fact’s existence its to undercut many, if not all, mysteries in Scripture. At present, we have very little rational access in to the explanation of many Biblical mysteries, e.g. the Hypostatic Union, the Trinity, the Atonement, God’s perfection and the freedom of God’s will, etc.

Exactly why Calvinism is false

Excellent point!!

I miss you, brother! It's so good to see the last Apolojedi is still alive! ;-)

I imagine he'll spell it differently.

Brilliant eye on Scripture. Thank you.

Exactly right! Cain & Abel are an excellent example of a converts between God and man being utter nonsense on Calvinism.

Given that the Bible repeatedly indicates sometimes God does *not* get what He wants (e.g. Genesis 6:6; Jeremiah 7:31; Matthew 23:37...), the idea that He always does is not Biblical nor can it be what the Bible means by "sovereignty". On the other hand, the guarantee that Yahweh will ultimately get His overall purposes for creation (which is how Mullins defined "sovereignty") is indeed taught (e.g. Isaiah 55:11). As for meticulous providence, let me first address the Scriptures you cited, and then I want to present a few that seem absolutely irreconcilable with that doctrine: Acts 17:28 can be true if we just minimally need Him in order to continue living and moving and existing. It doesn't follow that He chooses our every move. Daniel 5:23 again just indicates that our life and ways are in His hand. He could snuff us out or cease sustaining us at any time. It doesn't follow that our actions are by His choice. Proverbs 20:24 in Hebrew doesn't even have a word for "ordaining" or anything of the sort. I know you're referencing the Septuagint, but I don't see much force in grounding a theological position on a word in a Greek translation which has no counterpart in the wording of the original text. Jeremiah 10:23 -- I completely agree that it isn't in us to direct our steps. We ought to look to God. Job 12:10 -- Same as Acts and Daniel. Psalm 139:16.... That's not the natural sense of the Hebrew text; but I'll spot you that and just point out that Molinists also think all our days were known ahead of time and written in the book from before the world. At best, these passages are consistent with meticulous providence, but they do not *teach* it. On the contrary, the Bible does explicitly teach *against* it in various places. I'll just give a few examples by category: Passages that indicate God does not ordain evil choices of humans: Deuteronomy 32:4, 5; James 1:13-15. Passages that teach that God *wants* everyone to turn back, so that He can forgive and bless them: Ezekiel 18:23&32 as well as 33:11; Acts 17:30 Passages that describe God in the position, not of the Ordainer of all choices, but as one literally *begging* us to choose better: Romans 10:21 (which is a quote from Isaiah 65:2); Isaiah 48:18. There are even passages that indicate that God does not know ahead of time all of our choices (like Genesis 22:12; Genesis 18:20, 21; Psalm 14:2

@@Mentat1231 You said: *"Given that the Bible repeatedly indicates sometimes God does not get what He wants..."* Are you asserting that man can thwart the purpose of God? That some things are not according to the counsel of His will? That some things are not from Him? Could it be that you are conflating God's will of decree with His preference? You seem to be reading the scriptures through the lens of a narrative sir, and they don't mean what you are trying to make them mean. You said: *"There are even passages that indicate that God does not know ahead of time all of our choices"* Then I'm not so certain that you are worshipping Yahweh. You said: *"since you believe God to be omniscient about future events."* Ah, so you're an open theist then, not a Christian. OK, that explains the lens you are looking through then. You said: *"God presents Himself as someone who begs and pleads with His creations and hopes that they will do right so that He can bless them."* So your god is not working all things after the counsel of his own will, and not all things are from him, to him, and through him, and man can indeed thwart his will. Your god seems to be no more than a glorified man.

@@lawrencestanley8989 1) I'm not an open theist. Though I am open to it. 2) I am a Christian, and I gave Scriptural passages to substantiate each of the points I made. Did you read them? 3) The distinction of decree and what He actually wills is not Scriptural. Theologians came up with that, and does it not strike you as somewhat duplicitous on God's part? In any case, I carefully left off the many examples that contain decrees and only used examples where He states clearly how He feels and what He actually wants. Again, and I mean no disrespect by this at all, genuinely, but did you read the passages?

@@Mentat1231 I did read your post, several times, and you seem to be overlaying a narrative on the scriptures and reading them through it; they are not saying what you think they are saying. Again, a god that can have his purpose thwarted is not the God of scripture. A god who is ignorant of anything in creation is not the God of scripture. Have you read the entirety of the Bible? It helps to see everything as one cohesive unit, not merely as a number of proof texts to support a narrative.

@@lawrencestanley8989 I have read it many times, but may I ask you: If it turned out that the Bible's full and consistent portrait that it paints of God did not match up to your standard (e.g. if He can want something and not get it, though certainly not with regard to His overall purpose), what would you do? Abandon the Bible? Or revise your standards to meet His? It seems to me that you may be in a situation similar to Jonah's...

That’s a cute atheist trope devoid of any exegesis or historical analysis of the text.

@@lucashondros3418 what's there to exegete? lol

//Regardless of how bad I would say the arguments made in these videos are, it should still be understood that many of the things being objected to are not ultimately distinctive of the Reformed Tradition...// As one who practices Reformed Theology, I agree! I am Reformed but not Calvinist. I am Reformed but oppose EDD.

@@FreethinkingMinistries Hi, so I think there was some confusion on your end about my comment. At first I thought it may have been my mistake, but it seems that I used the word “distinctive” correctly, for it means to be a characteristic of one person or thing, and so serving to distinguish it from others. However, by your statement it seems that you interpreted my words to mean that not all Reformed individuals believe in [what you guys call] EDD. I also take issue with your claim that you are “one who practices Reformed Theology” and that you are “Reformed but not Calvinist”. I myself enjoy to tell people that I prefer the term Reformed, for not all Calvinists themselves are actually Reformed, but all Reformed individuals, historically, are “Calvinist” in their soteriology and so I’m a bit confused as to why you would make this statement, being that it’s incoherent on a historial level, unless you would want to argue that Arminius (who I’m sure you don’t agree with everything on) was Reformed, thereby broadening the scope of what it means to be Reformed beyond confessional boundaries. If so, I would love to discuss that as well as I take issue with that perspective that some share. Nonetheless, I think it should be noted that the actual point I was making is that not only those in the Reformed Tradition affirm these things you guys object to. Who I had in mind were the Thomists, who are certainly not Reformed in that they are Roman Catholics who take issue with Molinism and agree with us on these issues, as seen in the historical arguments made between the Dominicans and the Jesuits, and then if you wanna add some fun to it, consider the Jansenists.

​@@edwinnunez7538 // . . . by your statement it seems that you interpreted my words to mean that not all Reformed individuals believe in [what you guys call] EDD.// This is true. I reference multiple reformed theologians (and 5-point Calvinists) in my book who reject EDD. //I also take issue with your claim that you are “one who practices Reformed Theology” and that you are “Reformed but not Calvinist”. I myself enjoy to tell people that I prefer the term Reformed, for not all Calvinists themselves are actually Reformed, but all Reformed individuals, historically, are “Calvinist” in their soteriology and so I’m a bit confused as to why you would make this statement, being that it’s incoherent on a historial level, unless you would want to argue that Arminius (who I’m sure you don’t agree with everything on) was Reformed, thereby broadening the scope of what it means to be Reformed beyond confessional boundaries.// I do consider Arminius to be a Reformed theologian. He was a Reformer who died in good standing with the Reformers. I write more about this in a new book that hit Amazon on Christmas day. I encourage you to check it out: www.amazon.com/Human-Freedom-Divine-Knowledge-Molinism/dp/166671786X/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Mere+Molinism&qid=1640792287&sr=8-2 I also got a PhD in theology from a Reformed university. I literally have a "reformed card." It's pretty big and framed on my wall. ;-)

@@FreethinkingMinistries I will certainly check it out, although I don’t believe there will be anything new in the nature of your argumentation for the position that Arminius was Reformed. I would say, however, that Richard Muller has done an excellent job in proving just the opposite. I was also intrigued by your statement that you reference multiple individuals (both Reformed and “5 point Calvinists”) who reject EDD [as you guys call it]. I’ll have to check that out, but I have a feeling that these individuals you might cite are not at all articulating what you think they are, but instead that they are speaking in terms that go beyond the Post-Enlightenment categories of “Libertarianism”, “Compatiblism”, “Hard Determinism”, and “Soft Determinism”, something I would applaud and much exhort modern Calvinists to do if they want to be faithful to the Historic view regarding the Divine Will and Human Agency/Choice. Nonetheless that is solely an assumption I am making, and will have to read your work in order to examine the veracity of my predictions.

@@edwinnunez7538 Where do you get the idea that all Reformed individuals are Calvinist in their soteriology? Considering the father of the reformation is Martin Luther and Luther was not Calvinist in his soteriology, that is a baffling claim you made.

Kerry, the Bible is under-determinative regarding exactly how sovereignty is defined. Thus, theologians and philosophers survey the whole of scripture to infer the best explanation as to how sovereignty should be defined. If we hope to be reasonable (Isaiah 1:18) then we will seek to avoid begging the question in our definition.

DW: Considering the fact that Exhaustive Divine Determinism (aka Calvinist version of divine sovereignty) logically entails divine deception of the believer - your position destroys itself.

@@dw6528 Explain what you mean by "divine deception of the believer." Is Isaiah 63:17 where the prophet ascribes to God the ultimate causality for Israel’s wandering into sin an example of this "divine deception?"

@@lawrencestanley8989 Sure! This applies to Calvinism - because Calvinism is predicated on Exhaustive Divine Determinism. Lets say James White's reading of scripture resolves that [X] is TRUE. And John Piper's reading of that scripture resolves that [X] is FALSE. And it is also the case that both of them perceive their reading as TRUE We have 3 conditions 1) JW is correct - JP is wrong 2) JP is correct - JW is wrong 3) Both JW and JP are wrong. According to the doctrine of decrees - JW's perception was determined by factors outside of his control - by an infallible decree - and he could not DO OTHERWISE than have the perception he had. Same thing for JP. Now back to our 3 conditions: 1) It was infallibly decreed that JW be correct and JP be divinely deceived. 2) It was infallibly decreed that JP be correct and JW be divinely deceived 3) it was infallibly decreed that both of them be divinely deceived. But notice the most critical fact of all - is that neither of them are permitted to discern whether their perception is TRUE or FALSE.

@@dw6528 But scripture is full of accounts where God ordains the facts and circumstances of men's lives, as well as the mutable nature of their 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 also that they willingly sin against God (Genesis 45:8, 50:20, 2 Samuel 12:11-12, Isaiah 63:17, 64:7). Scripture also shows where He reveals Himself to some, while hiding Himself from and blinding others. Even in scripture, those who were of the faith were not all on the same level of understanding; Peter had to be publicly corrected by Paul for instance. We may not always understand the "why's" of God's dealings with men, but we at least can point out that God does control men's understanding by what He chooses to reveal or hide from individuals. Do you deny this?

I resonate with your crayon work. I wonder if Jesus ‘being the truth’, means he is the source and the ‘blueprint’ which all purported truth must agree with. So, source and standard.

@@Z__K217 Yep. Seems on point to me. Which makes me wonder why anyone who has studied the scriptures can fall for something that depends upon truth existing without any grounding and outside of God's control...

@@lawrencestanley8989 Thanks Lawrence. I am relishing how those in this thread with more Scripture in their veins, resonate with Middle Knowledge and are comfortable with the mystery of ‘how’ the Triune God of Scripture knows such things. Best to you.

@@Z__K217 As long as we stay within the bounds of scripture, we will not be prone to err. That is why Molinism fails.

@@lawrencestanley8989 Greetings Lawrence. I was actually persuaded of the God of Scripture possessing Middle Knowledge via Scripture. If we look at how many divine attributes are culled from the different genres of Scripture, e.g. God’s omnipotence, etc., it appears to me so can instances of Him possessing foreknowledge of subjunctive conditionals of human freedom be gleaned - thus, Middle Knowledge. Consider: 1 Samuel 23. God tells David some of his enemies’ subjunctive conditionals. Specifically, which cities they would catch David, if David were to go there. Jeremiah 38:17-18: Subjunctive conditionals for Zedekiah’s possible surrender to Babylon. Matthew 11:20-24 Scripture reveals some of Tye, Sidon and Sodom’s subjunctive conditionals of their human freedom. Namely, that if the wonders performed in Capernaum and Bethsaida were performed in Tire, Sidon and Sodom, then Tire, Sidon and Sodom would have repented. 1 Corinthians 2:8 God foreknew the subjunctive conditionals of the rulers of this age. Namely, if they had known they were crucifying the Lord of Glory, that they would not have. Psalm 139 describes how the God of Scripture knows many of our subjunctive conditionals of creaturely freedom, e.g. words, choices in travels, our ‘days’ all written in His book, etc.. Then consider, that Scripture reveals that God has knowledge of persons before they were created, i.e. often ‘before the foundation of the world’, etc. Jeremiah 1:5. God says of Jeremiah, that before Jeremiah was in the womb, God knew him. Isiah 49:1-6. Isiah writes that before he was born the Lord called him. Psalm 139:16. The psalmist writes that before they came to be, all the days of his life were written down by God in His book. 1 Peter 1:20. In section of Scripture, Christ is clearly stated to have been known by God before the foundation of the world. A special individual albeit, but an individual person nonetheless who was known before they came into existence. Then there is knowledge of individuals before their existence in the Order of Salvation. Ephesians 1:3-4 The order of salvation for individuals here begins with them ‘in love’ being chosen. Unless love is bereft of knowledge, then with the Romans 8:28-30, what is loved is connected to what God knows. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 Again, to be chosen before the beginning of the world reasonably implies we were known before the beginning of the world (as blueprints). Romans 8:28-30 The order of salvation begins here with Foreknowledge of individuals. 1 Peter 1:2 The Order of Salvation here also begins with knowledge of God of pre-created individuals. Revelation 13:8 Names written in the Book of Life, before the foundation fo the world.

How do you justify God’s actions with regard to Noah’s flood if you deny retributive justice? Plenty of other examples in Scripture as well.

@@PaDutchRunner There are a lot of ways. For starters, it could have simply been pragmatic; cleansing the world of evil. Retribution is about causing suffering for suffering's sake. However, I think 1st Peter gives us a big more than that. It tells us that Christ preached to those souls. Sin corrupts our human nature. Each sinful choice makes future sinful choices easier. So, another possible answer is that God was hitting a pause button on these people's lives so that they wouldn't corrupt their natures any further and could still respond positively when Jesus offered them the healing which He had accomplished through His life, death, and resurrection.

Hi Daniel, I’m sorry but these statements just aren’t true. You say that the Gospel “paints a very ugly and unappealing picture of God who is both the author of evil and….”. Despite it being blasphemous, it’s just nonsense on a historic and a philosophical level. I’m sure that at least you would recognize that distinctions are made in these discussions and have been made historically to respond to this accusation, but to simply dismiss them is a real shame. You then go on to slander Christ by saying that his Gospel “makes believers doubt their salvation” which is just something that no one sees on a practical level (although that merely anecdotal).

@@edwinnunez7538 Firstly, I didn't say 'the gospel' I said 'Calvinism'. Secondly, I'm aware of the attempts to defend God's character on Calvinism, and they're stupid. Take the idea of secondary causes for example. It's like saying that because I hired a hit man (a secondary cause) to murder my wife, I'm innocent. Anyone who is thinking objectively about it could see how stupid of an idea that is. Thirdly, it does indeed make people doubt their salvation. You're only saved if you're one of the elect. You can only know that you're one of the elect if you endure until the end. You can't know if you'll endure until the end, so you can't know that you're one of the elect. This has been a problem for Calvinists for ages. And this opens up an even worse problem for God's character on Calvinism which is that there are believers who appear to be genuine and then fall away. This can only mean that God deceived them into thinking that He had granted them faith, when He in fact had not. If God was willing to deceive them, how do you know He's not deceiving you right now? You don't.

What's "very ugly and unappealing" about God being "the author of evil" and the one "who punishes people for the evil He determines?" Never mind the fact that the devil and his demons are creatures God Himself made as righteous angels but however later assigned to them their kingdom of darkness in the heavenly realms when they "did not stay within the limits of authority God gave them but left the place where they belonged." (Jude 6 NLT).