Debate starts at 9:19

@mrdandrea

2 жыл бұрын

That opening by Stratton was so powerful that I thought everyone, including James White, was going to pack up, have refreshments, and go home. Unfortunately, Stratton spoke too fast. White forgot to strap his seat belt and couldn't even focus on what was said 😭

@PracticalBibleStudies

2 жыл бұрын

@@mrdandrea We must have watched two different debates.

I admire Dr. Stratton's courage but he was way out of his league here.

One of the hardest debates I've ever watched. That cross examination period was nightmarish, which was a big disappointment to me because cross is the best part of any debate. Dr. Stratton seemed determined to preach a sermon during his questioning time.

@Jerry-zz2eu

2 жыл бұрын

It was the most frustrating debate I've watched, including Muhammed Hijab vs David Wood.

@firstnamelastname2552

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jerry-zz2eu But have you seen the Steve Tassi debate?

@Jerry-zz2eu

2 жыл бұрын

@@firstnamelastname2552 I have not, and now I'm apprehensive to try.

@firstnamelastname2552

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jerry-zz2eu It's a total wreck. It's so bad that James White doesn't even host it as one of his debates. He calls it a non-debate. But it's on KZread if you are feeling like watching a trainwreck.

@ChristisLord2023

21 күн бұрын

I can't decide which is worse, Tim in this argument or Leighton on Romans 9.

Another fantastic debate by Dr. White. The cross examination was a little difficult but, as a whole it was a good debate. Thank you for making this available and thank you to both participants.

@peterpeter1611

2 жыл бұрын

I lost respect for James White in this debate. Yet again he refuses to answer questions, dodges questions, fails to engage with the topic, and misunderstands the issues. In a debate, failing to address and rebut the contentions raised implies agreement with them. James White completely failed to do this. Rejecting God’s omniscience is a problem, whether he realizes it or not.

@eotjappliedapologetics43

2 жыл бұрын

@@peterpeter1611 You obviously watched a different debate - certainly not this one...Put aside the Quran and embrace Jesus Christ!

Cross-examination was a trainwreck. I honestly feel embarrassed for Dr. Stratton. Dr. White won this debate easily.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 жыл бұрын

I agree. I think White won the debate. But I don’t think he intellectually defeated Dr. Stratton. I’m not saying Stratton is right. I think Stratton was very nervous and inexperienced at debate. But I didn’t see any devastating argumentation from Dr. White.

@jonathanchaney5896

2 жыл бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews When White held up his Bible and asked for examples from it instead of even her movies, that was pretty devastating. Especially considering the topic was is it biblical.

@NPC985

2 жыл бұрын

That was cringe.

@jeffallanday

2 жыл бұрын

I agree even though I don't believe as Dr. White. I really believe Dr. Stratton needs more study and training on how to debate. He broke the rules many times and he did not clearly make questions during cross.

It became very clear in the Q&A (such as it was) that Stratton straw-mans White's position by committing categorical errors. If he has one set of categories and White has a different set of categories, then the purpose is to investigate and reveal these categorical differences, not force one position through the categories of another. He did this by trying to answer the questions he wanted to aske White without actually asking the questions so that White couldn't answer them himself. He also did this when it was White's turn to ask questions by changing the questions that were asked. The point should be to find whether or not Stratton's categorical system, i.e. his variety of Molinism, are biblical categories. Stratton made a nice argument at first in that it was very orderly and easy to follow. However, it hinged not on the biblical affirmations that we was making, but on the imposition of a sub-biblical categorical system, particularly addressed at defeating White's soteriology. That was his error. He never made a positive case in full. He made a partially positive case, ignored the categories he would need to prove in order to complete the positive case, then made a negative case. The part that he ignored was proving how creatures could make decisions based on uncreated factors. That's not a biblical category and he didn't recognize it when White asked him about it.

@FabledNarrative

2 жыл бұрын

Most clear evidence of this was when Tim Stratton kept calling James White a Molinist multiple times during cross examination. James White kept refuting Tim Stratton and gave reasons why.

My goodness, it took me a while to find this video on KZread.

@surenshrestha6405

2 жыл бұрын

Me too, finally!!

@bobatl4990

2 жыл бұрын

Me too…

@jesuschristiskingofkingslo2023

2 жыл бұрын

Hmm I found it rather quickly 🤔

@TavishCaryMusic

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah it was the first result for me. Huh.

@surenshrestha6405

2 жыл бұрын

Maybe we searched James white Vs Tim Stratton ....

Stratton's first response is one of the worst begging the questions I've ever heard.

The fact that Dr. White won the debate has less to do with who is the better debater and much more to do with the fact that James is standing on the truth of scripture. James won this debate because he exposed that Molinism is not biblical.

@Solideogloria00

2 жыл бұрын

Lol Calvinism? No Christian believed Calvinism before the 16th and 17th century. Doctrines of man. And no Augustine wasn’t a Calvinist.

@nando7522

2 жыл бұрын

@@Solideogloria00 K.

@daddada2984

2 жыл бұрын

Great claims need great evidence.

@Solideogloria00

2 жыл бұрын

@@daddada2984 that’s right. Calvinism would require great evidence in Christian history. I’m not a molinist, but Dr. White didn’t even attempt to engage with the 4 premises presented by his opponent.

@amichiganblackman3200

2 жыл бұрын

@@Solideogloria00 just saying it doesn't make it true lol

God bless you Tim Stratton. You're an incredibly intelligent man and I hope you take this as a learning experience of proper exegesis and how to follow the criteria/rules of debate. James White did a wonderful job, I'm very thankful for this debate!!

@Arabian_Epileptic

2 жыл бұрын

Well said, Tim needs to remember the rules and remember basic respect of his elders

@cog4808

2 жыл бұрын

You are blessing a liar?

@artstefan453

2 жыл бұрын

@@cog4808 blessings aren't reserved for strictly those you agree with. The wicked are blessed by God,, are they not? (The wicked include liars btw) If God does not have favorites and showers all people with all sorts of blessing, why do you think its okay to hold a different lesser standard? Let alone me, why would I want cursing for someone I think is wrong..? That's certainly not the Biblical standard we need to aspire to. Which is Christ. Should I hold back prayers for someone I disagree with too? That would be a ridiculous conclusion. But who knows, maybe you're still cage-staging. Tim Stratton holds some solid Biblical truths, and I'm thankful for that. Again, God bless you Tim Stratton!!

@cog4808

2 жыл бұрын

@@artstefan453 but he is obviusley lying , his position is heretic . If you are a preacher/teacher and you preach false doctrines then you are misleading people. The bibel is very clear , the reformers are the onley ones who preach the truth. TULIP is a 100% biblical if you disagre then you are a heretic. "If anyone comes to your meeting and does not teach the truth about Christ, don’t invite that person into your home or give any kind of encouragement." 2 John 1:10. This is not a inhouse debate , people need to come out from none reformed churches and join the real church. I love James White but he is a coward and a comprimiser in my eyes for calling Tim a brother , he should call him a heretic and tell him he must repent from his position or else there must be a seperation.

@artstefan453

2 жыл бұрын

@@cog4808 wow so definitely cage-staging. Have you any idea what the Gospel is? Maybe read through 1 Corinthians 15 a few more times, pay close attention to what Paul considers "of first importance". Its certainly not TULIP. There is no basis for you to consider Tim outside of the faith, its incredibly arrogant to assert such foolishness. I doubt you'll see the logical fallacies at this point but... God bless you anyways! I'm praying for you my friend. Again, if God blesses all sorts of sinners, that does not mean we can choose who to "bless" and who not to. We pray for all men without distinction.

This dude brought up Marvel and Thanos...what a meltdown...

Well done, Dr. White. This debate helps us see where philosophies like Molinism simply fail to balance the biblical data.

It seems to me that the heart of the argument is that Molinism is logically consistent, therefore it must be biblical. I’m not a molinist but I was really hoping Stratton would try to out-exegete White by just digging into passages. But he just stayed with philosophy and superheroes. There may have been proof of something rational or logical, but as for biblical (the actual topic), it fell short.

@hondotheology

2 жыл бұрын

it is only logically consistent if you disregard everything in scripture that speaks of God's will, God's decree, God's desires, God's omnipotence and omniscience, man's slavery to sin and his depraved heart, etc etc, and your first assumption is that man is free. it is not biblical in any sense of the word

@jonathanchaney5896

2 жыл бұрын

@@hondotheology Agreed. I was just hoping for a more biblically-driven argument rather than philosophical.

@user-jk2po3cz7d

2 жыл бұрын

I actually believe it’s extremely presumptuous for a human from the dirt that is limited by space and time to establish a system that outlines how a being, that is not limited by space and time, operates.

@philipmurray9796

2 жыл бұрын

Comic book theology

@user-jk2po3cz7d

2 жыл бұрын

@@philipmurray9796 Thats a really good way to put it

Tim repeatedly says it doesn't make sense for God to command things which we're not able to do. Ironically, the debate took place in a Lutheran church and it was Luther's classic book "The Bondage of the Will" where he proved repeatedly that God CAN command people to do things which they aren't morally capable of fulfilling, and being culpable for it. Luther HAMMERED that fact, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. For example, the Bible says in Rom. 8:7 "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot." Yet, unregenerate people are still culpable for not submitting to God's law even if they are metaphysically and ontologically incapable of doing so due to their fallen natures. This is part of why I'm still a Calvinist. As great as Guillaume Bignon's materials are in defense of Calvinism, Tim still needs to read Luther's "The Bondage of the Will" for more BIBLICALLY based evidence of the bondage of the human will to sin and the sovereignty of God in salvation.

@BibleLosophR

2 жыл бұрын

It's better to read Martin Luther's book "The Bondage of the Will" than to listen to it. That way you can pay attention to the details. Also, the translation by J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston is better than the older one by Henry Cole. Nevertheless, he's a link to the audiobook of Cole's translation: kzread.info/dash/bejne/aaaB1beNfNPTY7A.html

@IAmisMaster

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrRichard3418 It’s a garbage book that contradicts how the early Christians interpreted the Bible on freewill against stoics and manacheans.

@BibleLosophR

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrRichard3418 Right. BTW, I think he also included his Catechism as worth preserving. So those two books.

@BibleLosophR

2 жыл бұрын

@@IAmisMaster Big deal. The early church fathers, while important, were fallible. Even Irenaeus claimed Jesus was around 50 years old when He was crucified. Yet, that's patently false, even though he claimed it was a reliably passed down tradition.

@IAmisMaster

2 жыл бұрын

@@BibleLosophR John Calvin not only claimed false things but invented them against unanimous Church teaching, such as limited atonement against clear Scripture (1 John 2:2) and once saved always saved against clear Scripture (Hebrews 10:26-31). Irenaeus error of Jesus age, clearly a misrememberance of the context of John 8:57, in a time when Scripture copies were few, far between, and hidden during persecution, is a comparatively minor error.

Can't WAIT to watch this!!!!

This is where you ask questions Stratton: I'm gonna just answer that for you

Dr. White was so patient with Stratton's strained 'reasoning'. Dr. Stratton needs to learn to answer the questions without trying to chase rabbits to prove his beliefs. I felt fatigued listening to his responses. Dr. White remained so calm and deliberate and always brings the issue down to the least reduceable point. I have listened to him and always learn more by doing so.

Although I disagree with James white, I think he clearly won this debate.

Dr. Stratton wanted to impress with his intellectual fancy wording, but he failed to display the biblical proofs for his position. He then went on with a flaringly bad analogy taken from...the marvel universe!?

Turn with me to Avengers 3:16

@harveybarham

2 жыл бұрын

Classic

@peterw1642

2 жыл бұрын

Haha.

@juliorodriguez693

2 жыл бұрын

Best comment

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 жыл бұрын

He really hurt his debate performance with the Avenger stuff.

@TheFreedThinkerPodcast

2 жыл бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews meh. I don’t mind appealing to movies and stuff as simple illustrations. There’s nothing wrong with it in principle. I don’t think the analogies actually helped however, since the Bucky example is clearly a violation of conditional ability and coercion against his natural will/desires contrary to even the most basic Compatiblistic views, and the Dr Strange is actually causally determinative since he could not tell people which world it was or it would change the outcome - that is, prior conditionals would determine which outcome comes about and that Doctor Strange is only praise worthy because he has morally sufficient reasons for bringing about the world he wants whereas if Hydra did the same thing for bad motivations and Thanos won again then we would say that Hydra did something positively blameworthy for bringing about Thanos actions. But there isn’t anything wrong with illustrations per se (if they were valid) though it will make his presentation not be evergreen. The issue is that he seemed too married to the movie analogies that they often just came off as assertions and the principles weren’t drawn out properly so the illustrations just felt awkwardly constructed.

Interesting debate! White definitely had the upper hand on debate experience but showed his strength in drawing his definition of biblical and his defense against molinism straight from the text. Stratton really failed to counter White’s opposition and was constantly trying to use a different terminology and make allusions without the Bible. It made following Stratton’s argument very difficult whereas White’s points could be clearly seen and checked against Scripture. I was particularly very unimpressed with Stratton’s use of the Avengers over just going to the Biblical text (probably because Molinism isn’t there) but his main defense for using that over the Bible was that Jesus taught in parables. He made a small comment that White would have disliked Jesus’ teaching in parables. I don’t think he meant it to come off like this but by doing so he lined up his parable to be equal with the parables God himself used. That did not sit well with me at all and completely ignores a fact that Jesus’ teachings came from real life scenarios and he also constantly used Scripture to help explain what He was saying. I think this topic can be confusing and difficult to flesh out in a debate format but if you have taken the time to study these topics before hand in various systematic theologies it is clear that White’s defense is a lot more coherent with the entire storyline of the Bible.

Man that cross examination period was rough

A summary of the debate: Dr Stratton- “I am going to prove that Molinism is biblical by talking about what happened in the Marvel Cinematic Universe!”

I can't wait for the Radio Free Geneva episode on this one. That will be a doozie!

White is so relaxed. So sharp.

Ok Timmy drank 10 gallons of water in this one.

@surenshrestha6405

2 жыл бұрын

Thou counter of waters!! 😌🤭🤣🤣🤣

@johndisalvo6283

2 жыл бұрын

@@surenshrestha6405 You must get pretty thirsty spewing out lies like that!

I believe that Dr. White made the better case. Dr. Stratton will improve as he does more debates.

@AD-en5dq

2 жыл бұрын

he sidestepped and misrepresented everything including Calvinism because the repugnant truth that people like John Piper(God Bless Him) freely admit is that in fact God CAUSES the horrible gratuitous Evils of the World yet The Bible clearly States God is NOT The Author of Evil so where do we stand in a place where 1. inconsistent Calvinists say God is not the Author of Evil 2. Confused Calvinists say the bible clearly says he isnt the Author but our system says he is so its unknown/arbitrary or 3. You just bite the bullet and say yes God Causes evil because otherwise he isnt in control of it

Stratton doesn’t know how debate questions work. That was embarrassing.

The London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 states in chapter 3 section 2: "Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions." This is almost exactly what the Westminster Confession of Faith says in the same chapter and section. Since, the LBCF heavily borrows from the WCF. Both were written to deny middle knowledge, and therefore Molinism or even a more Calvinistic-like middle knowledge position like Suarezian Congruism.

@IAmisMaster

2 жыл бұрын

Doesn’t really matter what a smal group of English calvinists decided 1660 years after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, when Justin Martyr and Irenaeus already refuted determinism and interpreted the Bible as teaching libertarian free will back in the 2nd century.

@douglasmcnay644

2 жыл бұрын

@@IAmisMaster So "my small group of fallible men beats your small group of fallible men" because...? All that matters is what is taught in Scripture. Paganism has been around for a long time and yet that doesn't make it correct. What matters is the truth.

@BibleLosophR

2 жыл бұрын

@@IAmisMaster It is relevant if Stratton wants to argue that the LBCF teaches libertarian free will. The passage I quoted specifically reject the concept of middle knowledge. So, even if the LBCF does teach libertarian free will, it does so by inconsistently because it specifically denies middle knowledge. Whatever the case is, Stratton cannot say the LBCF teaches or allows for middle knowledge.

@IAmisMaster

2 жыл бұрын

@@BibleLosophR Ah, I missed that was Stratton’s point. You are correct in bringing that up to counter Stratton’s point. Your point is valid apart from the clear error of the LBCF.

@IAmisMaster

2 жыл бұрын

@@douglasmcnay644 Justin Martyr and Irenaeus are pagans? Wow. Of course it’s about what the Bible teaches. I read the Bible and then read Justin and Irenaeus and they are mostly accurate and interpret in context. Can’t say the same about Calvin, who invented “once saved always saved” and “limited atonement” against unanimous Christian teaching and clear Scripture (Hebrews 10:26-31; 1 John 2:2). That’s the point. You’ve been deceived into thinking Calvin’s false interpretation has anything to do with what the Bible actually teaches.

Dr. White used explicitly Biblical illustrations to demonstrate his view, while Dr. Stratton had to use illustrations based on theoretical mad scientists and Marvel movies. It is difficult to take a system of thought very seriously if one has to keep creating simplistic scenarios that depend on thrusting attributes of man onto God, as if the two categories could even mix in that way.

@timothyschmall966

2 жыл бұрын

I was astounded at the arrogance and disrespect of Dr. Stratton throughout the entire debate. He is so committed to his philosophy and logical syllogisms, and this has seriously affected his ability to actually see past them and be able to hear or see clearly what Dr. White said and, even moreso, what the Scriptures clearly teach. Molinism is a fundamental denial of the absolute Sovereignty of God, and the Molinist's commitment to Man's Libertarian Free Will clearly demonstrates that they have a very low view of God by denying that God can indeed create moral freel creatures with genuine freedom of choice. Even in our fallen state, we are all free to choose whatever we want to in any and every situation. The problem is that our 'will' is enslaved to our fallen nature. All of our desires are sinful, and therefore the only way that anyone will ever desire God is if God works the miracle of Regeneration in our heart. Only then are we even able to realize that we are a sinner in need of God's Grace in Christ.

@CmRoddy

2 жыл бұрын

I agree. Dr. Stratton’s rail-roading and utterly pathetic straw-manning of Dr. White by saying “Now that we are both Molinists,” was quite breathtaking. A cheap debate tactic that I honestly believe any fair-minded individual should see as just that, pathetic and cheap. William Lane Craig should be ashamed to have Tim Stratton on staff at Reasonable Faith. As far as I’ve seen (I haven’t watched every WLC debate but I’ve seen quite a few), he has never engaged in such childish tactics towards his opponents.

@oracleoftroy

2 жыл бұрын

@@CmRoddy I don't know about that. WLC did similar things in his discussion with Wight when he appealed to Dickens rather than the Bible and when he tried to claim that Calvinists claim God is the second cause of sin. White cited WCF and LBCF to document that the Reformed position explicitly denies that and has for centuries. Both WLC and Stratton show a tendency to argue against a strawman rather than the actual beliefs being defended and to defend their view using works of fiction (whether "A Christmas Carol" or comic books) rather than the Bible. It was such a bad look for Craig that I'm surprised that Stratton took the same approach.

@CmRoddy

2 жыл бұрын

@@oracleoftroy I absolutely agree that WLC has a bad habit of using extra-biblical works to defend his views. He even went so far as to use Cerberus as an illustration for the Trinity, which was a disaster. But my comment on the cheap debate strategies specifically is referring to Stratton’s slimy railroading of White, attempting to make White answer questions based on Stratton’s definitions and then saying “Ha! You’re a Molinist! So let’s assume that and just keep going,” despite the fact that White objected to this tactic. WLC would never do something like that.

Is it OK if I do a debate review of this debate on my channel? Please & thank you! Blessings!

If I were asked before the debate if I would rather win a scored debate based upon the content, but lose the rhetoric in the cross-examination, I'd pick the former over the latter every single time. That's exactly what happened tonight. In my opening speech I provided a deductive argument concluding that "Molinism is biblical." I proceeded to defend four key contentions, that if true, showed why my argument was sound. This argument along with the contentions were NEVER refuted by Dr. White. Dr. White's responsibility as the one who takes the negative position was to interact with my positive case in my opening speech during his 20 minute opener, or his 8-minute rebuttal, or at least in his closing speech. He did not touch the vast majority of anything I said. Indeed, I pointed out all of his failures to address my case in my one and only rebuttal. If one is scoring the debate, this was devastating to him as he had the responsibility for showing why my positive case for Molinism was false. He did not do it. He never did it. My argument reaching the deductive conclusion, "Molinism is biblical," was NEVER refuted. Moreover, what blew my mind was that Dr. White affirmed the same concepts I defined in my opening speech. I was not joking when I pointed out that he was a Molinist. He affirmed the concept of libertarian freedom (but calls it "creaturely freedom"). He also affirmed that God was sovereign over the first "creaturely/libertarian free" sin, decreed and predestined the first sin, and knew the first sin would occur before the foundation of the world (before He created the universe)? This is exactly what the Molinist affirms. I can learn a lot from Dr. White as he has been debating for over 30 years. When it comes to rhetoric, playing to the crowd (the vast majority of which were previously committed White disciples), and remaining calm during cross-examination, White was on his game. But I believe that if one watches this debate closely and actually scores it based upon the actual content and arguments, this debate was not even close. I feel very good about my first debate. I also realized that I have much to learn about cross-examination. But although I got too animated during this portion of the debate, I had a good answer to every-single objection or question White raised. My favorite part of the night involved several conversations with Calvinists after the debate was over. Each and every one of them purchased my book and said they had never heard a positive case for Molinism like that or the devastating problems that follow if humans do not occasionally possess libertarian freedom (and EDD is true). Three or four of them asked me for my email to continue the conversation and to learn more about Molinism. Bottom line: I learned a lot tonight. I did some important things right, but also made mistakes to learn from. I am looking forward to my next debate!

@gingrai00

2 жыл бұрын

I love you brother. I cannot tell you how much I cherish the pic of you, Doug, Fran and “me” on the phone😎❤️.

@coolhuman1982

2 жыл бұрын

Way to go Dr Stratton....Keep strong on tearing down this narrow sighted bible interpretation. I like your debating style though, looking forward for next battle 😁👍

@Ttcopp12rt

2 жыл бұрын

Love you brother, but to be honest, Dr. White isn't expected to interact with your 20 minute presentation in his opening statement. Opening statements are for each side to present their own case - not rebut anything. These are well-known fundamental rules of moderated debate. So, we know you meant well and you were pumped, you were incorrect to claim that James never addressed your points during his first 20 minutes...God bless you though 🙏

@IAmisMaster

2 жыл бұрын

Tim, you did fine for a first debate against a heavy-weight. Being right and the untennability of Calvinism certainly helps. My suggestion is trying to address the issue of middle-knowledge preceding God’s decree and better explaining the creational origin of conterfactuals. I raised this issue earlier on “truth-maker maximalism” and how White is winning massive points simply by arguing molinism and any libertarian free-will system as teaching or implying these things are “uncreated.” I deny that. God created the system by which he chose to make free-will possible. You need a better way to help the audience understand you are not saying anything preexists God or is in anyway outside God’s total decree (that decree just happens to miraculously include libertarian freedom).

@peterw1642

2 жыл бұрын

If you stick with your "White is a Molinist" nonsense, I can't respect it. I can't even feel sorry for what happened to you. If you are that dishonest, how can you be taken seriously?

Well, that was painful to watch, Dr Stratton spent 2 hours cutting the legs off all his own arguments......and getting upset with White for pointing it out. He may be intelligent but he is severely out gunned at this debate. Unfortunately very unprepared.

Tim Stratton contends that James White did not interact with his 3 points. How can James do his own opening statement if he is arguing Tim's points? This is what the rebuttal segment is set up to do.

@hymnsake

2 жыл бұрын

It's possible to give opening statements that don't contribute to the thesis of the debate. So it's valid to say that James is not interacting with Tim's contention. Unfortunately it is Tim's Opening Statement that's off topic

@CapsFan082892

2 жыл бұрын

He didn’t response to the 4 points is his rebuttal either.

@Pastor-Brettbyfaith

2 жыл бұрын

@@hymnsake James has been on topic from the beginning. At about the 2:30:00 mark, Tim started losing his composure. James asked him to open the Bible, yet Tim continued to argue from the psychological perspective. I think this young man drinks too much of that Red Bull. He couldn't sit still. This debate is sorely one sided! The debate between James and Bill Craig was so much more edifying. At this point, I have seen enough.

"This verse says humans make choices, therefore libertarian freedom" - Stratton's opening argument

@aperson4057

2 жыл бұрын

If humans are able to make choices, then that’s libertarian freedom.

@peterw1642

2 жыл бұрын

@@aperson4057 If we choose according to our nature rather than arbitrarily, then if is not libertarian free will, it is compatible free will.

@aperson4057

2 жыл бұрын

@@peterw1642 not at all. Free will says that we can make choices in accordance to our nature. I for example can’t make the choice to fly since i never had it in my nature to fly. Proponents of libertarian free will agree with all of this. What isn’t the case is that there antecedent causes (primary or secondary) that makes the creature make those decisions (as compatibilists affirm).

@peterw1642

2 жыл бұрын

@@aperson4057 Isn't not having wings antecedent of the choice to fly?

@BrandonCorley109

2 жыл бұрын

@@aperson4057 That assumes that all positions ≠ libertarian free will don't believe that people make choices. This clearly isn't true, which is why Stratton was simply begging the question.

I'm very familiar with how William Lain Graig describes Molinism. I didn't know who Tim Stratton was so I watched a few videos where he, very specifically, describes what his "Mere Molinism" is and how it differs from conventional Molinism. He says it is compatible with both Calvinism and Arminianism in a way that can bring them both together. His explanations of mere Molinism are so convoluted, in my estimation, I couldn't grasp the concept, which I usually have no trouble doing. I'm not willing (haha) to get the book and read it. Can anyone out there explain it better than the guy who thought it up?

@jcedar25

2 жыл бұрын

I feel you all the way. The more I have listened to Stratton explain Molinism the more confused I have become. If you can’t explain something with simplicity you probably don’t understand it yourself.

@contemplate-Matt.G

2 жыл бұрын

@@jcedar25 Amen to that. Which means it probably is false

@jonathanchaney5896

2 жыл бұрын

Interesting to see this comment because Stratton does differ quite a bit from WLC. He seems trying very hard to be reformed and Molinist, but I think that undermines both.

Leighton Flowers vs James White needs to happen again soon. #onelove

@TKK0812

2 жыл бұрын

If Leighton would only agree to debate one of James’ proof texts, in a language he doesn’t speak, without notes, while standing on one leg and blindfolded, then it would actually happen. Unfortunately Leighton is obviously scared to meet these deman…..parameters.

@hart2heart

2 жыл бұрын

@@TKK0812 hahaha ikr

@peterw1642

2 жыл бұрын

Did you see their debate? Leighton subsequently dedicated his life to revenge against White. Leighton has become Ahab chasing the great white whale named James White.

@LucerneInDerne

2 жыл бұрын

Hahahaha

@DanSSwing

2 жыл бұрын

Needs to be followed by a potluck so people can make more "choice meats" jokes.

Reading many comments I’m struck by how rude people are to the debaters, in particular, to Tim. How many are just here to mock someone and make fun of them like this is some elementary school dissing competition? I admit that I am disappointed in the community of Christians who I see interacting on this stuff. Regardless of who made a better case in the debate we have fly in the ointment here. I recognize that many will thoughtfully watch this debate and many won’t comment in childish ways but to see it as a standard flavor in an inter-Christian discussion is saddening.

@christiankalafut5572

2 жыл бұрын

Hi Mike, I agree with you and I love your stuff man. White definitely beat him in debate though; one thing White is good at is clearly demarcating when he stops presenting and exegeting evidence, and began to preach on the belief. Stratton, myself in old debates, and many others, often end up preaching when they should be debating, with no clear break in the material. Preaching should come in, like the end of any presentation, as a time for reflection, synthesis, and conclusion.

@philipmurray9796

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you Karen for setting these wildlings straight.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 жыл бұрын

Tribalism. Difficult to escape in a debate of this nature, I think.

@justinmccollum3897

2 жыл бұрын

Not trying to be rude about Tim. But it sure is frustrating watching a moderated debate and Tim not being respectful and abiding by the rules get some kind of backlash. This is a serious issue that needs to be discussed.

@MikeWinger

2 жыл бұрын

@@justinmccollum3897 I’d have no criticism toward people discussing it in a mature way.

This was a really good debate.

I honestly couldn't make heads or tails out of what Tim was saying.... His speed talking was too much for me to keep up. He was off the rails in this one.

@bobatl4990

2 жыл бұрын

Agree…I sometimes think both he and Craig rely on confusing the listener into thinking they must be smarter so they have to be right. Molinism seems to me as simply trying to get God off the hook for the existence of evil by kicking that can down the road to somewhere over the rainbow called “middle knowledge”.

The topic of the debate: Is molinism biblical Tim Stratton’s main argument: Why Calvinism is false

@IAmisMaster

2 жыл бұрын

Since James White’s main argument is only Calvinism is biblical and therefore molinism is not, then it is a logical and necessary rebuttal.

@IAmisMaster

2 жыл бұрын

Oh and Calvinism is so painfully false it’s not even debatable. Calvin, one of the first Christians along with Zwingli to deny baptismal regeneration and inventer of novel doctrines like “once saved always saved” against the clear teaching of Scripture (Hebrews 10:26-31) and “limited atonement” against the clear teaching of Scripture (1 John 2:2), is probably the last Christian on earth one should look to for guidance on biblical interpretation.

@IAmisMaster

2 жыл бұрын

@Damon H It’s always a good time to preach against Calvinism.

@CapsFan082892

2 жыл бұрын

lol. That is not what he argued. His 4 contentions were a positive presentation of molinism. Repeating White's response is not an argument.

@Liftercode

2 жыл бұрын

@@CapsFan082892 i was going to say the same.

My dude exegetes the Avengers movie in this debate. HAHAHA

@sethanderson533

2 жыл бұрын

Exegeting movies to prove points while generalizing scripture is not the hallmarks of a biblically strong position

@Stephenson21

2 жыл бұрын

If White was an Avenger… he’d be Falcon. . . . Basically the most pointless one

@Arabian_Epileptic

2 жыл бұрын

Yea this was so bad on Tim's part, citing this movie as if is "Thus saith the LORD"

@Charlie5225

2 жыл бұрын

@@Stephenson21 Haha. In what way is James White pointless, especially during this debate? He made many good points from scripture. Tim was the one exegeting the marvel universe.

1:19:00 I just watched Tim's tone and he seemed extremely angry and inpatient and whew White how humbly dismantled him!!!? Emotions overthrown, Tim!!

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 жыл бұрын

Experience. White brought 30 years of debate experience to the table.

God bless my molonist brothers BUT Dr James White just hemmed your theology up.

I’m still never going to watch Avengers

I love both brothers. They are fellow heirs to the Kingdom, however, Dr White’s debate experience came through in this one. If I had to pick a winner, Dr White would be it. God bless.

@johndisalvo6283

2 жыл бұрын

No matter who “won” the debate, God’s truths LOST. Two heretics debating each other!

@edenalexander8023

2 жыл бұрын

@@johndisalvo6283 Hi John. The very fact that you freelyp picked James to win the argument proves that you had the ability to choose which defeates James'entire argument. Think again brother! lol.... by that statement Stratton wins!

@johndisalvo6283

2 жыл бұрын

@@edenalexander8023 Anyone that says that God caused Adam to sin is a heretic. And both affirm that!

@truththroughlove1012

2 жыл бұрын

@@johndisalvo6283 you mean bc God made Eve and the first thing she did was give Adam the fruit? Seems plausible to say that the first cited action from a creator's creature would be the intended action of such creation, unless the creator had none of its will placed in it's creation to begin with but no one who makes anything today that does not have an intended outcome and insuring that outcome happens. Eve was a helper for Adam, a helper of what...eating the forbidden fruit. It's linear and literal and yet people don't want to give god the glory, the glory of 1) man now having the ability to choose good or evil and 2) thus needing a savior who glorified God and good and thus accomplishes god's purpose. Yes, god decreed them to eat the fruit when he made Eve whose action was to give and eat the fruit.

@joeadrian2860

2 жыл бұрын

Debate experience? How about his knowledge of the Bible?

At the 1:09 mark, I thought the debaters were wearing golden top hats with flowers coming out at the top! 😆 Dr. Whites are tulips of course 🌷

It sounds like Dr. Stratton is trying to make a middle ground between Determinism and Molinism in the same way Dr. Geisler tried to find a middle ground between Arminianism and Calvinism. Yes I know this is an oversimplification

@chipan9191

2 жыл бұрын

I don’t think that’s quite accurate. It’s more like he’s creating common ground between Calvinism and Molinism. Like he said, you can be a 5 point Calvinist and still believe we have some form of libertarian freedom in some circumstances. That would make you a Molinist.

Tim's lack of experience in debating was very clear.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 жыл бұрын

Yes that’s exactly what happened.

Despite the fact that I am a Leighton Flowers supporting Provisionist, I have to admit that James White won the debate by destroying Tim Straton during the cross examination period.

@kingjames5527

2 жыл бұрын

That's because Stratton claimed to believe that he is essentially calvinist, so when you start with serious error, and then you want to jam molinism in the middle of it, first of all, who cares? It's irrelevant. So two determinints are going to argue about some nuance of their pagan fatalism. What a waste of time!

@philipmurray9796

2 жыл бұрын

I love how James got the "choice meats" phrase in. That should be a title of Flowers' new book. Lol.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 жыл бұрын

It seems to me that he had a stylistic victory in the Cross Examination. Dr. Stratton was just nervous and excitable. Sitting across from one of the best Christian debaters in the world would do that to someone.

@gingrai00

2 жыл бұрын

It’s been my experience that we can be, far too often, moved by presentation and toys and less by information and reason. I agree that Tim’s showing in the cross examination and in the moments between his opening and his closing statements were not his best. I agree that in comparison White appeared more poised and more confident but I think if you will review the arguments and separate them, as best as you were able, from the presentation of the arguments, you will come up with a different view. White is practiced in rhetoric and he does a good job of distracting people from the central claims while simultaneously making it seem as if he’s refusing arguments. He often will rail against positions that his opponents do not take as he did whenever he brought soteriology into the picture. Listen the second time and try to separate out the spectacle of the presentations from the content that was presented. I would be curious to know if you felt the same way after a second viewing.

@philipmurray9796

2 жыл бұрын

@@gingrai00 soteriology is the prime aspect of molinism, seeking to square free will and predetermination. It's dishonest to say the discussion has nothing to do with soteriology.

New rule: don’t debate anyone who is doing their first ever debate.

@levifox2818

2 жыл бұрын

That makes it impossible for any new debaters to emerge though, right?

@Postmillhighlights

2 жыл бұрын

@@levifox2818 they can get experience debating other inexperienced debaters right? 175ish debates vs 1st debate isn’t very helpful. After TS gets some debate experience this would be a much more helpful debate in my opinion. The cross-ex is just hard to watch. He is a mess, and I don’t mean to be disrespectful, I’m sure he was more composed than I would be. Sending a single A batter to the plate against an MLB pitcher isn’t a good matchup.

@redhawkmillenium

2 жыл бұрын

It's true there was some imbalance with it being Tim's first public debate and James being a seasoned pro with literally over a hundred debates under his belt. Still, Tim had been engaging with James publicly on this topic and hadn't backed down, so he had ever opportunity to be prepared for this.

@Postmillhighlights

2 жыл бұрын

@@redhawkmillenium that’s the problem. It wasn’t an issue of grasping the material. In fact, it keeps the audience from getting a feel for the actual issues because one inexperienced debater can’t function under pressure and stick to asking questions that were legitimate questions and not designed to be ‘preaching my side’ questions, trap questions, loaded questions. Imagine how different this would be if it was just letting the arguments speak rather than someone personally being so uncomfortable that they can’t control their sweating or breathing. Just disappointing to be honest.

@sovereigngrace9723

2 жыл бұрын

@@Postmillhighlights Dr. Stratton opposed Dr. White online for weeks following WLC discussion (and vice versa). So this was an accepted challenge by Stratton. He wasn't forced to do this

Moral of the story; Molinism because of Marvel, not the Bible.

Wow Stratton completely fell apart in cross x. The guy spent almost all his time making statements instead of asking questions. Then took offense when White tried to jump in and still answer his statements as if they were questions. Stratton basically tried to get a 3rd rebuttal period.

@bretscott2018

2 жыл бұрын

And now watching 2nd round of Cross X. Stratton onto his 4th rebuttal period. It appears he had a hopper of questions prepared beforehand and didn't make any amendments to the content White brought to the debate.

@jonathanchaney5896

2 жыл бұрын

On top of that, trying to force White to agree with things White doesn’t actually believe instead of trying to pin White in a corner.

@TheSharpie

2 жыл бұрын

@@jonathanchaney5896 Yes, Mr. Stratton was making assertions without establishing definitions/foundation then tried to shoehorn Dr. White into a position which he would never accept due to the faulty definitions.

@taylorj.1628

2 жыл бұрын

I love Dr. Stratton and am a Molinist but agree that his Cross Exam wasn't handled the best.

Stratton's approach to the cross-examination was shameful. Major L.

@IAmisMaster

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed. If he understood how this portion of the debate works, he might have won. Tim’s version of cross-examination is to try to force-feed his arguments into his opponent’s mouth. He should have taken notes from a guy like Trent Horn, who schooled James White on the “Can a Christian Lose Salvation” and part of it was by showing James only knew how to dodge questions he couldn’t answer well. Here Tim’s “questions” are so rhetorical they have the opposite effect.

@DarxscEdits

2 жыл бұрын

I agree, though I think he was respectful and the exchange was cordial otherwise.

Honestly think too much time during the debate was spent off topic. Some of the little spats, and playing up for the crowd, is not what I like in a debate, and I think it takes away from clear communication, and understanding. Stratton got in some good points, but I really don't think he understood the concepts themselves as well, and often he responded to White without really getting the reasoning of what White had said. Stratton dodged the questions more often as well. He never had a strong response to White's biblical argumentation, which is what the debate's supposed to be about to begin with. On a few points I think the responses White gives are not the strongest possible, including in his appeal to God's omniscience, or the progressive nature of sanctification when it comes to our understanding of God's truth. There are solider responses out there. I think White won this debate, but from my standpoint, the biblical passages he cited at the start were enough to prove Molinism isn't biblical.

Amen 🙏 Doctor White! Doctor Stratton; whatever happened to chapter and verse?

Tim you honestly failed so bad. I had high hopes for you after watching you as a student of the great Frank Turek. You were not only disrespectful to James White by cutting him off and not allowing hims to speak, but also unbiblical. This is why I remain a calvinist, everyone who objects to it used terrible arguments. James White won this debate by a landslide. Molinism works if this is the avengers but not in the real world and certainly not in the Bible. You seriously thought that by attacking calvinism that molinism is true by default? I had high hopes for you Tim but you made this debate into a joke not taking things seriously and being rude to Dr. White who focused not on philosophy and avengers but the Bible alone.

Tim lost this debate.

@sandromnator

2 жыл бұрын

@Goblin Demon You are very dumb. Read scripture.

@aperson4057

2 жыл бұрын

@Goblin Demon you do know that Molinism was developed by a Jesuit priest, a counter-reformer?

@mystery6411

2 жыл бұрын

@@aperson4057 Genetic fallacy, even a prisoner could tell something that is true. Get the hell out with that crap thinking and start learning it's argument.

Leighton just had Dr. Stratton on his show to talk about the debate. Leighton's Romans 9 debate against White from 7 years ago.

Is God a person who can be experienced in believers' lives, in answered prayer or gifts, a changed life in a more dynamic relationship, or is he a doctrine having attributes that are the subject of intellectual analysis reductio ad absurdum? I looked at the title of this particular debate and thought 'who cares'!! I know I probably shouldn't react that way, but with all that is going on in the church and the world at the moment does it really matter?

I want to believe in a God who is in control of EVERYTHING. If I can't comprehend how to reconcile that I will gladly accept it and wait till I reach heaven to understand it.

@H1N1777

2 жыл бұрын

Amen

@iansmith9474

2 жыл бұрын

In Molinism God is in control of everything. However, Molinism preserves your free will. In Calvinism, there is no free will.

@Joe-Speck-RossDowningGMC

2 жыл бұрын

@@iansmith9474 I don't want my free will. I was a slave if sin and I would never choose God if I could choose on the basis of my own freedom of will. And I will never be brave enough to say that God cannot determine the damnation of someone and He not remain Holy, Just, and Loving.

@iansmith9474

2 жыл бұрын

@@Joe-Speck-RossDowningGMC You make it sound like affirming free will is less pious. Consider that maybe, its God's Holy and perfect will for you to have free will. The prospect should not be considered a slight against his Holiness, especially since your free will, if you possess it, came from him.

@Joe-Speck-RossDowningGMC

2 жыл бұрын

@@iansmith9474 I am in no way affirming the piousness of a position. My only point was I don't want to be someone who tries to put God in a box or set boundaries for him.

I'm not a fan of James White, and I despise the doctrine of Calvinism... but DANG BOY Tim Stratton got slaughtered in this debate!

@TheNathanMac

2 жыл бұрын

White offered a very short time for this debate, white had already researched and prepared in his debate with WLC. Stratton had very little time to prepare.

@morethanaconqueror7285

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheNathanMac Dr. Stratton is the one who challenged Dr. White to the debate …..

@johnclaiborne2749

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheNathanMac BOTH men claim to know their respective subject matter, which means that the claim that "Stratton had very little time to prepare" doesn't hold much water. You either know your position, and can defend it accordingly, or you don't/can't.

@TheNathanMac

2 жыл бұрын

@@morethanaconqueror7285 not so, it was the church that contacted both men I believe, but Tim was challenged.

@leonardu6094

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah unfortunately Stratton is not as experienced as White is in debates.

Boy you can see Stratton drinking water like he is in trouble. And doesn't seem that they are talking over each other until White cross examined him?

Lost audio at 1:30:00

I'm honestly at a loss as to what the benefit of Dr. Stratton's position is. So, God doesn't Causally Determine™ you to do X, but He puts you in a situation where you will do X. Even if you wanting to do X is somehow determined by your free will, it's still God putting you in a situation where you will with 100% certainty do X. It's like the worst of both worlds: mechanical determinism and meaningless free will.

@jonathanchaney5896

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly. I've even had some molinists argue that it's "basically determinism" or God "rigging the system". How is that any better/different than what they are arguing against? In theodicy, it means that God knows the evil that will result and yet He actualized the world and set up the situations for that evil to happen, but then can throw His hands up and say "not on me". How does that provide any kind of hope, redemption, purpose?

@Jerry-zz2eu

2 жыл бұрын

The benefit is the ability to say that God did not make that rapist rape that little girl. The rapist chose to do so and will face God's justice.

@jonathanchaney5896

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jerry-zz2eu but a compatibilist can say God didn’t make him do it either as God is not the author of sin.

@Jerry-zz2eu

2 жыл бұрын

@@jonathanchaney5896 They can, but not honestly. Who gave the man the desire in a compatibilist view?

@jonathanchaney5896

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jerry-zz2eu “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” James‬ ‭1:13-15‬ ‭ESV‬‬ “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭2:1-3‬ ‭ESV‬‬

In the opening DS gives 4 contentions. The first is LFW @16:00 (1 Cor 10:13-15) Note: the use of “occasional” LFW but drops it off many times. The second is God predestines all things @23:00. (Eph 1:4-11) Note: all doesn’t mean all to DS either for God allows man an “occasional” LFW. The third contention seems to put weight on the scales of 1 and 2 towards man LFW saying God can’t determine a LFW choice @24:00. No scripture given but claimed by definition (is this telling?) Note: Poor limiting of God’s “all things” ability. The fourth contention middle knowledge is true @25:00 No scripture given again. Note: DS doesn’t believe predestination the way Calvinists do -and seemingly this would lead to other head butting of theological terms between the two. With all these contentions given, what if contention 1 is false and we don’t have LFW? Which I would argue John 8:30ish says plainly. He’s based everything on LFW being true, even above the “all things” God predestines. Does God not give us the law Ten Commandments and says do these or don’t do these? LFW creatures choose what? We choose sin against every good law. Therefore we can’t do right. Therefore what good has LFW done for man? It has placed us as Contention 1 stated by DS over Contention 2 God predestines all things. I think we see from DS own presentation, Molinism is bankrupt. Or at least what was presented as Molinism was not good.

@boughtwithaprice9121

2 жыл бұрын

Actually contention 4 had EZ 33:11 as middle knowledge implied. Sorry.

@KalebMarshallDulcimerPlayer

2 жыл бұрын

It seemed that his proof of LFW was "this must be true, or God would be an evil monster."

Did Stratton come to debate or advertise websites and books?

If there is a command to choose, we HAVE a free enough will to actually CHOOSE!

@MattMasiewicz

2 жыл бұрын

Matt 5:48 Be perfect as my Father in heaven is perfect.

@markwhite5926

2 жыл бұрын

@@MattMasiewicz nice try, you forget that there is is a context to that verse... and you forgot the first word... THEREFORE! how could those who have already sinned be perfect.

@levifox2818

2 жыл бұрын

Just so you’re aware, Calvinists do believe you can choose. It’s called compatibilism. Even compatibilism has various takes, but basically it means free will (by some definition) is compatible with determinism (a word I don’t much prefer).

This was painful.

Amazing that these young guys who study philosophy for 5 minutes think they can contend with mature and proper theologians. Have some respect and humility, you can learn from them.

I don’t think Dr. Stratton understands how a debate is to be conducted. One is not to respond to the arguments during their opening monologue, it is during the rebuttal period where one begins to engage with the arguments…

There is no place on this stage for the "middle man". He appeared to do nothing to hold the 'debate' to typical 'debate' rules; especially reigning in the rude and uncontrolled statements and interruptions from Stratton. The "middle man" should have been sitting in the audience. Actually he [was] part of the audience and failed in his role as a 'debate'** moderator. Debate is quoted because this wasn't a debate, except maybe in name only.

Stratton’s premise was “Molinism is biblical.” He tried to substantiate it by logic, not the Bible. He’s stuck at square one on the premise that middle knowledge solves the “problem” of theodicy. We are still waiting to see where this idea is in the scripture.

@CranmanPhotoCinema

2 жыл бұрын

If you think thats all he did then you werent listening, or you didnt understand his argument. He first argued, biblically, that predestination and LFW are in the bible. THEN he took both of those things and made an inference to the best explanation for how they are reconciled through Molinism.

@countbless3360

2 жыл бұрын

Hey man, its in the avengers movie; see the movie and you will eventually understand why molinism is biblical.

@CranmanPhotoCinema

2 жыл бұрын

@@countbless3360 or just actually listen to his opener…

@omnitheus5442

2 жыл бұрын

@@CranmanPhotoCinema these Calvis have got nothing and have to gas light the position. Stratton destroyed White here...

@philipmurray9796

2 жыл бұрын

I guess the scriptures are insufficient, gonna have to pick up a copy of Avengers to get the meaty stuff.

The way Stratton set up his argument, then if you are not a Molinist, you're not Christian...

@Liftercode

2 жыл бұрын

What's is that difference of Calvinism is the gospel?

@mystery6411

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah because in Calvinism god is the moral monster behind every evil. And causes people who don't have freewill to be saved or go to hell. Y'all can't deny that no matter how you want to see it.

@Liftercode

2 жыл бұрын

@@mystery6411 i don't deny it, thats exactly calvinism. Ones created with the purpose of hell and others with the purpose of heaven. Then in the final judgment the ones created for hell will say they did what was meant for them. Calvinism is easy to understand.

“Name one thing I don’t think is predestined.” 😅😂

@surenshrestha6405

2 жыл бұрын

🥴🥴🥴🥴🤣🤪🤪🤪😆😆 Claiming I'm 5p Calvinist here and there 😁😂🤣🤣🤣🤫🤫🤫🤫

I posted this elsewhere in a response, but I felt that it needed to be in the main discussion so that people can give up this false narrative of Molinism. Molinism posits that there are certain truths that do not require a “truth maker,” that is, they are true just because they are true, and they do not need any grounding (subjunctive conditionals). However, it is declared of Jesus in both John 1:14, 17 and John 14:6 that He IS the truth, and Ephesians 4:21 declares that “truth is in Jesus.” John 14:17, 15:26, and 16:13 speaks of the Holy Spirit as the “Spirit of truth;” 1 John 5:6 declares that “the Spirit is the truth,” and Isaiah 65:16 declares Him to be “the God of truth.” But this does not mean that He merely aligns Himself with truth as men do in Exodus 18:21, as if truth were some external standard with which He must align, and we know this because, as we have already seen, the scriptures declare that Yahweh IS the truth. We see in John 17:17 that the word of Yahweh is truth, that is, the intangible, sanctifying, essence of Yahweh is truth, and that this truth became flesh. Elsewhere we see that “from Him and through Him and to Him are all things” (Romans 11:36), that is to say, Yahweh is the source, sustainer, and the rightful end of “all things” (see also 1 Corinthians 8:6, 15:28, Ephesians 1:23, 4:6, Hebrews 2:10). Because the Bible everywhere declares Yahweh to be THE truth, and in John 14:6, Jesus declares Himself to be THE way, THE truth, and THE life, if anywhere there ever was truth that existed completely apart from Yahweh (such as subjunctive conditionals), then no truth could ever be called “THE” truth, since there would be more than one of them. Therefore any truth, if it is truth at all, is derived from Him who IS the truth (Colossians 1:16-20), and any assertion to the contrary, that a particular truth is outside of Him, or that some truth can exist without any grounding, is simply false according to the word of Yahweh. To assert otherwise, given what Jesus said in John 14:6, if there is another “truth,” that is, if there is some truth not derived from Yahweh, then there is also another “way,” and we know that this is false. Because all truth has its grounding in Yahweh (cf. Psalm 31:5), how is it that anyone can then assert that there can exist “truth” about the creation that has no grounding? This can only come from an extra-biblical narrative, because according to scripture, no aspect of creation (no truth about creation) can exist outside of the Creator and His eternal decree (cf. Ephesians 1:11, 3:11, Romans 11:36). Therefore, according to scripture, subjunctive conditionals (as defined by Molinism) are false, and therefore Molinism is false.

To all the people that just came to this video to trash reformed theology and lie about Dr White (or even the other side) and not even watch the debate or interact with it, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Just because no one sees you on the internet does not mean God doesn't see what you write or the hatred you have in your heart. Some of you all really need to start asking yourselves if you actually care what the Bible teaches and if you are willing to obey what God commands. Here is the reality, God's grace is his and his alone and he will grant it to those he chooses. Man is also responsible for the decisions he makes. Both of those things are truth. The Bible teaches this. Maybe you are still growing on your walk and you just have not gotten there yet. However, if all you think about all day and all night is how much you hate reformed theology and specific individuals who advocate for it, guess what, you are in serious sin. Hate is akin to murder, those are Jesus' own words. If you are someone who only thinks about reformed theology all day long and can't focus on anything else (as it appears Dr Flowers does) you are horribly unbalanced and you need to focus on something else for awhile. If you people who show nothing but hate day in and day out actually thought reformed theology was truly leading people to hell and you were actually Christians, you would be evangelizing and not reviling. You show your true hearts. To close, this is not meant for people who respectfully disagree with reformed theology and can still have fellowship. I myself have family and friends who are not reformed, no problem. However, when you start to hate endlessly, I caution you, it might be time to make sure you are in the actual faith and not in some cult. Some of you King James only folks should also heed this message. Also, I know there are jerk Calvinists out there too, but that doesn't give you the excuse to be a jerk back. To the jerk Calvinists though, you knock it off too.

@peterw1642

2 жыл бұрын

Very great and needed message. I know I needed it, and I hope to be more like Christ as a result of it. Thank you. Peace and Grace to you.

@ThePristineFaith

2 жыл бұрын

Bluster and bluff in your vain attempt to support Augustinianism. Read Irenaeus, instead.

@lindajohnson4204

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, whom He will show various graces to, is the choice of God, alone. But when the Bible testifies that God has chosen to do anything that Calvinism disagrees with, Calvinism absolutely stonewalls it. In John 1, when it says that Jesus is the Light that lights every man that comes into the world, Calvinism jumps ahead to one of their fave proof texts, which they think proves that God isn't allowing any of the choices He so often demands. He came unto his own, and His own received Him not. But *to all who received Him, gave He the right to become the children of God, even to those who believe on His name.*

@oracleoftroy

2 жыл бұрын

@@lindajohnson4204 Maybe I'm slow, but could you explain how John 1 is supposed to contradict Calvinism? It would help me if you contrast the passage with their own confessions, because I'm pretty sure whatever contradiction you see requires an interpretation of Calvinism that no one actually holds to.

@lindajohnson4204

2 жыл бұрын

@@oracleoftroy I've got to think about what you said, but let me say, first of all, that the people who argue Calvinism online, do argue the points that we are constantly told "no Calvinist says" or believes. Calvinist theologians argue some of those no-Calvinist arguments and Calvin and Augustine argued some of them, yet we are told when we object to the arguments that no Calvinist believes such things. In such a situation, Calvin and Augustine are always disavowed, although recent books in agreement with them, are never disavowed, but celebrated. What's more, when we are told that no Calvinist says or believes such things, the one saying so will often then voice an argument which amounts to the same things that we have just been told no Calvinist believes. So the whole thing looks like some giant shell game when that happens, or the Harlem Globetrotters thing, where they hold the short guy's head down, and pass the ball back and forth over his head.

@2:24:35: Stratton: It's logically impossible to say that God can create libertarian free creatures and also casually determine them." White: God Can, and he did, and the bible teaches it. Acts chapter 4. What? White doesn't believe libertarian free creatures exist.

@DanSSwing

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, pretty sure White misspoke there, or maybe he was playing on the fact that Stratton inaccurately characterized White's own view of creatures as having libertarian freedom.

@kingjames5527

2 жыл бұрын

James White is a liar. First the asserted a complete contradiction which is impossible, and then he miscited a scripture that does not teach his hellish blasphemy. I would love to sit across from this lying false teacher and get into acts for, and demonstrate once and for all it does not teach what this liar claims. The man is a compulsive liar

@philipmurray9796

2 жыл бұрын

Free according to their nature, which is sinful.

@Given119

2 жыл бұрын

He believes God is the only being with libertarian free will. All creatures are created with a will that is subject to both thier nature and the will of their creator.

@CmRoddy

2 жыл бұрын

@@kingjames5527 It is mighty bold of you to make such a claim of a church elder, a minister of the Word, in good standing with his church. You called him a liar three times with zero evidence to back it up. I can guarantee one thing, to anyone who reads this regardless of what side of this debate they are on, that you would never have the courage to actually engage in a face-to-face conversation with James White on this topic. As much as I disagree with Dr. Stratton, I wouldn’t dare to have the arrogance, as a lay person, to say “I would love to sit across from them and demonstrate this and that,” as if I have the pedigree to engage in that conversation.

Is Stratton being cross examined by the audience or White? I'm so confused as to the point of looking at and engaging the audience.

Wow. I definitely think that White one that debate, but I would say that it was through debating expertise rather than convincing arguments. Dr. Stratton did not handle the cross-exam well, but, imho, his speeches were excellent

↖️ wonders if a Molinist can explain their position with Bible verses, and not an exegesis of the Avengers?

Tim’s opening was outstanding. He struggled in the interactive elements and this seemed clearly due to nerves which are a function of inexperience and this struggle is what antagonists will likely focus on. This is unfortunate because his opening and closing remarks were excellent. At any rate White took full advantage of Tim’s nerves and poured gas on him and lit him on fire also. Prior to the debate I would have thought it good if the tables were turned but, after the debate I have learned an important lesson… this approach is not in concert with love. I stand corrected.

@douglasmcnay644

2 жыл бұрын

Dr. Stratton relied on using Bible verses out of context, hypotheticals regarding play his bass on an airplane, and Marvel movies. It took him about 2 minutes to strawman Reformed theology, which was not the topic being discussed. He was supposed to positively affirm Molinism but spent much more of his time attacking Calvinism and ducking questions that get at the heart of the issue like "Does middle knowledge delimit God?".

@TONyjustRoCks

2 жыл бұрын

@@douglasmcnay644 Except for the fact Stratton directly answered the question you just accused him of dodging. He said it "delimits" God in the same way God's "inability" to create a fourth member of the Godhead or married bachelor "delimits" him.

@TONyjustRoCks

2 жыл бұрын

Great summation.

@bham7bh

2 жыл бұрын

This is not how you assess debates.

@taylorj.1628

2 жыл бұрын

Super solid comment. Dr. Stratton had a great game when it came to non-interaction but wasn't in control of cross exam.

Dr White kept spanking and spanking and spanking Dr Stratton with Sola Scriptura.

I was there and felt so sorry for that poor pastor moderating.

Didn't WLC say that Molinism isn't biblical but is "consistent with the bible?" Why are we having this debate?

@euanthompson

2 жыл бұрын

He said it wasn't unilaterally taught in scripture. Ie. There is no statement saying "I have middle knowledge and you all have libertarian free will". As Craig points out there is equally no verse unilaterally teaching Calvanism. Ie. "I have determined all things anf you have no option to do anything else but I hold you responsible for your actions". It was in response to White seemingly insisting his view was unequivically taught in Scripture while Molenism was some weitd guys fever dream and didn't interact with Scripture at all.

@CASeminary

2 жыл бұрын

That was my question.

@levifox2818

2 жыл бұрын

Dr. Stratton doesn’t have to agree with Dr. Craig, does he? Dr. Stratton calls himself reformed, and I don’t think Dr. Craig would.

@CASeminary

2 жыл бұрын

@@levifox2818 No, he doesn't have to agree, but there is wisdom in listening to elders and experts in these matters. By arguing that Molinism is biblical, not just consistent with the Bible, he put a very heavy, if not impossibly heavy, burden of proof on himself.

@jonathanchaney5896

2 жыл бұрын

@@levifox2818 What we call ourselves doesn't matter. One's doctrine speaks for itself.

Everyone commenting about how James White “slaughtered” Dr. Stratton in cross-examination... I genuinely don’t see it. I don’t think either one came out way ahead of the other - and White certainly didn’t “slaughter” him. Just seemed like a normal cross-examination.

@SickestDisciple

2 жыл бұрын

You think this is a normal cross x? Oh boy.

@taylorj.1628

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed. This wasn't a slaughter, but I could tell that Dr. Stratton was a tad "fresh" I guess you could say in the Cross Exam. He didn't exactly handle the format of Cross Exam perfectly.

@Oscardunlap

2 жыл бұрын

@@taylorj.1628 He didn't handle it at all... Zero self control, incapable of asking a question, didn't allow an answer and tried to force White to answer and prescribed fashion and not as he pleased. White slaughtered him in the cross just by following the rules of debate.

@chrisa-95

2 жыл бұрын

@@taylorj.1628 I agree with you

I feel really bad for Dr. Stratton.

Paul yelled and screamed when debating just saying and God was behind it

The title of the debate is "Is Molinism Biblical." I'm surprised that Tim agreed to that resolution. Since even William Lane Craig admits that Molinism, technically, isn't Biblical. Meaning, you cannot derive Molinism from the Bible. Though, Craig would also say that Molinism makes most sense of the Biblical data. Since middle knowledge cannot be found in the Bible. At most divine counterfactual knowledge is found in the Bible. But that's consistent with Calvinism as well as Molinism. Counterfactual knowledge is not necessarily middle knowledge. BTW, I'm a Calvinist who is open to middle knowledge [either Molinistic or (more likely) Suarezian] as last ditch options. My default position is Calvinistic divine determinism via compatibilism in the vein of James N. Anderson and Guillaume Bignon. I'm currently at 10 min. into the debate so far.

@Liftercode

2 жыл бұрын

I saw Craig talking about that and he presented some verse

@BibleLosophR

2 жыл бұрын

@@Liftercode Yes, the passage about Keilah in 1 Sam. 23 and the passages in the Gospels regarding Tyre and Sidon in Matt. 11 and Luke 10. But again, Craig doesn't think they teach middle knowledge. Only that the are consistent with it.

@Liftercode

2 жыл бұрын

@@BibleLosophR and yes is consistent.

@DanSSwing

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, God knows counterfactuals but they come after the divine decree, not before it. How the unicorn orbiting Pluto would react if someone were to put a green hat on it has no truth value until after God decides to create it.

Stratton attacked Calvinism. White answered the question of the debate.

I would say that a person's choices aren't casually determined by antecedent conditions for two reasons: 1. It isn't correct to think of God himself as an antecedent condition, since the universe, with its cause and effect, was created by God, but God is distinct from his creation. 2. God decrees all things (which is a type of causing or determining) according to his will, and he doesn't need to rely on antecedent conditions to do so.

This is my second time watching this debate. It somehow got more cringe the 2nd time. The only thing Tim proved in the first 5 mins of the cross examination is that he's a post-modern relativist with all that fancy redefining he did. Even White seemed like he was short circuiting there for a second. It's almost as if Tim is zoning in and out, he does this when he breaks the 4th wall. It's like he can't connect the things James is saying in relation to what he himself has said.

Middle knowledge put something before God, when all things in actuality are AFTER Him. God is primary to middle knowledge. That means, if God desired to look into a world of hypothetical conditionals, He wouldn’t just be looking at how people would respond to countless situations and then basing His decision on it. Rather, being primary, He’d be looking at how HE would shape those people, form their hearts, order their steps, and decree events in their lives. So then we’d be back to the start, with God being primary, and NO need for Him to respond to a world of conditionals. He’s the Mover. NOT the moved.

@jacobbrown4971

2 жыл бұрын

But that's not true at all, you are assuming a perceptualist model of divine cognition. As Kirk MacGregor has pointed out in Luis de Molina: "Here it should be stressed that Molina’s doctrine of middle knowledge carries with it a conceptualist model of divine cognition rather than a perceptualist model of divine cognition. On the perceptualist model, God derives his knowledge by looking and seeing what exists. This model is tacitly affirmed when people talk of God foreseeing the future or possessing foresight of events in the future. However, Molina insisted that God does not derive his knowledge by anything resembling perception. Instead, God’s knowledge is self-contained and should be construed on the analogy of a mind’s knowledge of innate ideas. Thus Molina stated concerning middle knowledge that “God acquires no knowledge from things but instead knows and comprehends everything He knows in His own essence.”50 So God’s knowledge is discerned completely from within God’s intellect and not by anything outside himself.51" (MacGregor, 96-97). "At this point, Molina’s contemporaries were apt to query as to the precise means by which God discerns his middle knowledge. Although the foregoing argument, if successful, shows that God has middle knowledge even if we can never know or understand the means by which he has it, Molina proposed an answer: supercomprehension, namely, “an absolutely profound and absolutely preeminent comprehension.”60 To understand this answer, we must first observe that on Molina’s conceptualist model of divine cognition, God knows all truths that are independent of his will and omnipotence (i.e., the truths he apprehends in his natural and middle knowledge) innately simply by virtue of his nature. This innate knowledge encompasses supercomprehension, which Molina construes as God’s unlimited intellectual capacity to perceive infinitely, within his own mind, the individual essence (or pattern) for every possible thing he could create. Remember from chapter 2 that, for Molina, these individual essences exist neither independently of God nor outside of God but only as designs within the mind of God. In other words, these individual essences are solely the product of God’s imagination - mental patterns or designs for things he knows in his infinite creativity and artistry he could create if he so willed. Hence we see immediately that God obtains no knowledge at all from the creatures that could or would be created from these patterns or designs.61 Rather, Molina insisted that God’s knowledge comes solely from the individual essences (the patterns or designs) themselves, which only exist as the thoughts of God’s own mind. In short, “God does not get His knowledge from things, but knows all things in Himself and from Himself.”62 So, for Molina all God’s knowledge is self-contained, a doctrine which redounds to the aseity - the absolute self-existence, self-sufficiency, independence, and autonomy - of God.63" (MacGregor, 100-101).

@holinessofthebride1935

2 жыл бұрын

@@jacobbrown4971 Then Molinism is self contradictory if that's the case. If middle knowledge is derived from God, then they have to face their own charge of making God the author of evil quite directly. If that's the case, then what differing option are they really offering, other than being more philosophically complex? Otherwise, acknowledge that according to their system, God is passively receiving knowledge from somewhere, while simultaneously ignoring how He would govern those worlds, including His ability to turn people's hearts and decree events into their lives. Since God would be sovereign in hypothetical worlds, He is not thwarted by the potential decisions hypothetical people make, since He would be active in those worlds as well. That's my point.

@holinessofthebride1935

2 жыл бұрын

@@jacobbrown4971 Perhaps at the base of many of these questions is some assumption that God just cannot appoint evil events to occur. But He certainly can. The Bible says He does it, so He does. The Bible says He is good so He is good. The Lord of all does not need anyone doing a whitewash for Him. If He decrees evil to occur, no man can put Him on trial. He is God.

Good old James White shifting the needle on the debating topic as the good old look over there mechanism so he doesn't have to argue against his opponent on the issue at hand. Did it with WLC on the Unbelievable Podcast and now here in this one not to mention all those debates that have come before including against Leighton Flowers... If a person cannot provide a relevant and solid defense on the topic at hand then they lose...

@cesarchavez9897

2 жыл бұрын

If you think White lost against Flowers you probably live in another universe. Have fun there.

The worst part of the comment section is all the pious "I'm so embarrassed by everyone's tone!.." grow up ya babies

@elementy11

2 жыл бұрын

It's a debate, not a date.

it bothers me that James was preoccupied with something else during the opening prayer

@TONyjustRoCks

2 жыл бұрын

Good eye, but that absolutely did not surprise me one bit.

@Justas399

2 жыл бұрын

you don't know that.

@Arabian_Epileptic

2 жыл бұрын

James White was the only one who glorified God in his closing statement

I really wish Dr. White pressed the absurdity of *gaining* knowledge about something *you* are doing. God doesn't gain knowledge about something he decrees as if he's either finding out about it later, OR, more concerningly, God is locked into doing what he already knows he's done/going to do. None of that makes sense for a being that transcends time. Part of Stratton's problems are his "Maximilist" assertions that are placed as standards any view must meet instead of or over the Bible itself. When your positive argument for how something is Biblical is that it checks philosophical boxes you made up and tries to solve an objection from the world instead of lining up with the testimony of Isaiah and others in Bible, then you aren't making a positive biblical argument.

@Jerry-zz2eu

2 жыл бұрын

Did it enter God's mind that in the High places of Baal in the Valley of Hinnom that the sons and daughters would pass through the fires of Molech before they did so?

@joshuabigbee5874

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jerry-zz2eu I'm going to have to ask you be more precise than "enter Gods mind" since apparently there's disagreement on how and what that means.

@Jerry-zz2eu

2 жыл бұрын

@@joshuabigbee5874 Sorry. I Can't be more precise than the scripture. Let me rephrase. What does scripture mean when it says it never entered God's mind and neither did he order it?

@joshuabigbee5874

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jerry-zz2eu There we go, that is more precise. And not the same as you said before. First of all, it's clearly not a simple answer because God quite literally did order Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Not to molech, but as a sacrifice. So I think we can rule out a simplistic literal interpretation. It never entered into God's mind as something he wanted his people to do or as something he would sincerely instruct them to do. Yet, again, it clearly entered His mind to sacrifice his own son. But if all the evil done to Christ, including the individual sins of those who committed those evils against him, is justified by the outcome and it being His free will choice to satisfy His own justice, then we must be able to apply that same big picture view to the evils done to us and even by us, but for a greater glory than we can ever comprehend. In the meantime, just as those individuals will still face judgement for their sins even though the scourging was ordained in prophecy, likewise we are still responsible for our sins and all we intend for evil even if God intends it for good. I encouraged you to continue to take any scenarios, challenges or possible solutions to this matter and overlay them onto the incarnation, life, sacrifice and resurrection of Christ. That is where we will find answers.

@Jerry-zz2eu

2 жыл бұрын

@@joshuabigbee5874 I'm sorry, but "God allowed evil to be done to Jesus" therefore "God decreed that man rape and murder that child" doesn't follow for me. I also don't think it follows that because he sacrificed his Son or ordered that Abraham sacrifice his son that we can't take a straightforward interpretation that God did not intend for men to sacrifice their babies on the molten alter of molech, and certainly didn't decree it. Neither would it follow that God would be grieved with the evil of men's heart when he brought the Flood if he willed and decreed the evil of their hearts.

Gosh that cross exam… just embarrassing. They both completely disregarded the rules multiple times, but Stratton was admittedly the worst in this case.

@taylorj.1628

2 жыл бұрын

Ya I agree wtih this. Dr. White was kind of rude and authoritarian in talking over people but at the same time Dr. Stratton tried to use Cross Exam as another rebuttal rather than actual cross exam.

@NPC985

2 жыл бұрын

@@taylorj.1628 being persistent and direct in debates isn't rude. It's just technique to force answers when dodging is perceived. Rude would be ad hominem attacks or something like that

Thinking about this debate carefully. I think this was pretty meh. Largely they both just talked past each other and refused to actually engage. The most interesting part was when James admitted that God ordains rape which seems to go against his whole talk about God's eudacia, but it was so late in the debate there was no time to explore it. While it feels White did better. I think this is actually down to him being better and more practiced at rhetoric and nothing to do with the fact his arguments were any good in this context. Complete wash.

A relevant quote from WLC..Biblically speaking, it is not difficult to show that God possesses hypothetical knowledge. For example, Jesus affirms before Pilate the counterfactual conditional “If my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews” (John 18:36) RSV). The Scriptures abound with examples of such counterfactual conditionals concerning creaturely choices and actions. Unfortunately, this fact does not settle the matter of whether God has middle knowledge. For the scriptural passages show only that God possesses knowledge of counterfactual propositions, and, as I have said, until modern times all theologians agreed that God possesses such hypothetical knowledge. The question remains, when in the logical order of things does this knowledge come? Is it before or after the divine decree? Since Scripture does not reflect on this question, no amount of proof texting concerning God’s hypothetical knowledge can prove that such knowledge is possessed logically prior to God’s creative decree. This is a matter for theologico-philosophical reflection, not biblical exegesis. Thus, while it is clearly unbiblical to deny that God has hypothetical knowledge, those who deny middle knowledge while affirming God’s hypothetical knowledge cannot be accused of being unbiblical (WL Craig, pp. 83-84 of Stanley Gundry (ed.), Four Views on Divine Providence (Zondervan, 2011)

@lawrencestanley8989

2 жыл бұрын

Wow...