Hello and welcome back to Sochiology 101. For those who tuned in last time, you know, we started

examining the cross-examination from my Romans 9 debate with James White. And of course, as always,

I was long-winded, so I broke it up into two parts. Here is part two of that discourse. But before we

play that discourse, I do want to remind you to go to Sociology 101.com. If you can sign on to be a patron, a supporter of the

broadcast, we would greatly appreciate it. If you're

considering a higher education, we highly recommend Trinity College of the Bible

and Theological Seminary, which you can find out more information about

by clicking on the classroom link there at Sotriology 101.

And if you can help us in any way, we would greatly appreciate it. So here is the second part of the examination of the cross-examination with Dr. James White.

Okay.

So if he had, then God would have had to have found someone else other than Paul.

Well, I'm not denying God's foreknowing God's abilities to know what his plans are.

So if God knew, then he couldn't have, right? Okay, this is where it gets into the philosophical, and I defer to William Lane Craig to debate with him,

and I probably should have just said there's a don't conflate, don't commit the modal fallacy

of conflating certainty with necessity.

Something that's certainly known is not necessary, is not

necessarily determined. And just because we acknowledge the certainty of God's foreknowledge of that

which men will choose to do does not mean that the choice in itself isn't libertarily free.

And that's, again, one of the philosophical mistakes that I think Calvinists make is a modal

fallacy of inflicting certainty with necessity. Just because something certainly is known doesn't mean

it's necessitated or determined by God the one who knows it. Knowledge in and of itself is not

causal. It doesn't cause it. And so we go over that and it gets a little bit long and philosophical.

...