Here at Sociology 101, we have tried to be reasonable in dealing with James White, who continually misrepresents provisionism.

Provisionist people like that, they do not want to be nailed down on what they actually believe about the issue of God's knowledge.

They don't want to be nailed down on it.

So you can listen to Layton Flowers and Layton Flowers on Unbelievable with saying, well,

you've got Mullenism and you've got simple free will and you've got blah blah and he goes

all over the place and hey, there's all these different options.

They don't want to be nailed down that because they don't have a coherent consistent

systematic theology.

So let's be objective and listen to the segment of the debate on Unbelievable that James

White is referencing.

I'll borrow from John Lennox, who really emphasizes the difference between the words

that and how.

We know that, for example, God created something from nothing.

We don't know how he created something from nothing.

And likewise, this narrative, we know that God brought about his purposes through Abraham's

servant, but we can't possibly know how he did it.

Now, Chris speculates that God did it by determining every single thought, action, and deed,

of every single individual for all times.

And I don't believe that's necessary, a necessary conclusion to draw from the text.

In fact, I believe God's much more impressive than that, as we've already stated,

based upon the fact that he's able to bring about his purposes despite and even sometimes through libertarianly free choices. And so we don't exactly know how God does what he does.

And I've even heard Chris say that he doesn't know exactly how God is not declared guilty or how

...