William Lane Craig vs James White - Calvinism vs Molinism: which best addresses the Problem of Evil?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- Calvinism and Molinism are two very different ways of understanding God's sovereignty. But which one best addresses the problem of evil?
James White argues that Calvinism - God foreordaining all human behaviour both good and evil - is the more Biblical and coherent view. William (Bill) Lane Craig argues that Molinism - a view which reconciles human freedom and divine sovereignty - is Biblically consistent without making God the author of evil.
For James White: www.aomin.org
For Bill Craig: www.reasonable...
For the 2013 Bill Craig & Paul Helm dialogue on Calvinism & Molinism: bit.ly/3o550G0
• Register for Premier Unbelievable? Live: www.unbelievabl...
• Get our 'Confident Christianity' course: www.premier.org...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsi...
• Rest of the world: resources.prem...
• Newsletter: www.premier.or...
• Blog: www.premierins...
• For the podcast: www.premierchri...
• Facebook / premierunbelievable
• Twitter / unbelievablejb
• Insta / justin.brierley
Hope you all enjoy this. If you want more from the show subscribe to our newsletter www.premier.org.uk/resource/unbelievable/
Thanks Justin, you are a great host for an awesome program!
ESPAÑOL PLEASE
Part two please…
Thanks Justin. Very stimulating discussion
Yes! I love it! I love God all the more in this discussion , another knowledge gained about God's sovereignty.
WLC: “He was giving Scrooge a hypothetical knowledge of subjunctive conditional propositions…”
Me: *furiously flipping through a dictionary*
😂😂😂😂
😂😆😂
Craig was providing a text that Calvinists haven't systematically misrepresented for hundreds of years so they'd be able to understand what he was saying (⌐■_■)
@@lewisroby6163 Sir, what do you think an analogy is?
😄😄😄
Would like to commend Dr. Craig for consistently staying on topic, articulating his position as an answer to the debate question rather than just trying to defame the opposing position and go on the attack.
He exemplified the qualities of love, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control.
Effectively he exhibited the fruits of he spirit.
I agree Craig has a very good demeanor...I think white was less than admiral , he often mis characterizes his opponents viewpoint
WLC is a class act. I respect and admire the heck out of that guy!
I have never heard anyone better than WLC at using a massive amount of words to say nothing. It seems to work for him with a lot of people I guess.
@@bradleyadams9430
If that is the case, you must not listen to a lot academically trained philosophers in general.
Broadly speaking philosophers have a tendency to be verbose and nuanced in their speech - for good reason. But this level of complication, especially in the analytic side, can make it hard to follow.
And perhaps, by not being able to understand it, one is left feeling as if nothing was said at all.
@@ericcollins6231 or it's just some dude that don't know, probably can't know, just running their heads with a lot of words (to try and sound superior. Works on you I guess) to make a point that could be summed up in one short sentence because they are so arrogant that they believe they literally speak for God instead of saying "I don't know". I am a human and couldn't possibly have a complete understanding of a being that could create a universe full of life". If there is a God you probably shouldn't be blaspheming or bearing false witness tho lol.
Justin: tries to explain Molinism
WLC: "That was very close, Justin"
😂😂😂
Like a professor haha
Justin, summarises what WLC just said.. WLC, recognising how wrong the simple presentation of his position sounds, says... "That was very close"
WLC "I give you an E for effort"
Brilliant 🤣🤣🤣
William Lane Craig reminds me of my father in the very best way. He is gracious and loving and humble. Always respectful and tactful. I always appreciate the eloquent, clear way in which he explains deep concepts. Though I don't align fully with Dr. Craig on a select few Christian topics (like the age of the earth, for example) I deeply admire his knowledge and wisdom, his work for the Gospel and his debating style. This debate was very helpful for me and wow, the moderator does an excellent job! James White isn't my cup of tea when it comes to debating and I feel he avoids the difficult questions. I also find him far less respectful and tactful towards others than a lot of the people on the opposing side to Reformed Theology. But with that said, I do respect Dr. White as a brother in Christ and for the work he has done for the Kingdom. Excellent video, overall.
James often comes across this way. However, the more debates and Q& a I've listened to with him in it, he genuinely loves. He's just very to the point. He's an excellent debater and goes to the point.
Justin, you’re probably the best moderator I’ve ever seen in any debate ever.
I agree. He allows both parties to have time to make their points and and counterpoints, he asks thoughtful questions, and if something is not clear to him or some of us in the audience he asks for explanation.
Plus he invented a new cologne 😁
You got that right. Best moderator out there, hands down.
Not to mention, he’s just wholesome in the way he speaks
He consistently does a great job.
I'm honestly shocked at this. I really thought WLC was never going to debate James White. This is a huge deal.
( I know it's not a formal debate. You don't have to tell me this.)
He stopped debating fellow christians because the other christians he debated weren't so charitable. So he doesn't wanna expose those christian debaters no more. But yeah, this happened.
Agreed. And honestly I don't think they've had a "formal debate" yet XD This was definitely a step in that direction but I'd consider this a formal interview/interaction. We've all seen James/Craig in their formal debates with muslims/atheists. That's what I think we're all hoping for. This was a bit casual for me, still glad they did it though.
Whats ironic is that they were very kind to each other but the FANS of both men are in VERY different "tribes" and are already TEARING each other apart.
@@BobSmith-eq9vs who is that?
@@jonathansoko1085 Very true! To be honest I don't see the militant James White fans, as a James White fan myself but I tend to hear about them a lot from others. Its a shame but this is an issue EVERYWHERE on the internet, real shame it has to plague theological discussion as well. Molinists and Leighton Flowers fans in my expirience tend to be extremeley nasty and hostile especially toward Calvinists. They'll go as far as to say we worship a false god and outright insult us inplace of meaningful arguments.
I cannot believe this debate is happening. I have wrestled with Calvinism for at least 5 years and love both of these guys. And I couldn't think of a more perfect host for this debate than Unbelievable. Thank you for making this happen.
definitely!!
Check out Open Theism
@@flowbrandz316 i have. Open theism violates God's omniscience, unless he chooses to limit his own knowledge. But i have never seen any scriptural basis for that
@@CapsFan082892 yeah I checked out Leighton flowers he's a great guy has a lot of good content. Haha I love all these guys. Just as a random recommendation you guys should check out Mike Winger and Chuck Missler
I also think Dr. Michael Brown did a great job debating Dr. White back in the day about this same subject.
It has always seemed more sovereign and awe inspiring that God WILL achieve his will THROUGH the free will of man rather than by controlling mans will. It seems that meticulously controlling and moving each piece to accomplish his will insinuates that if he didn't do that, it would spiral out of his control.
@AVB2 Yes we would follow God 100% of the time.
So, maybe instead of assuming that we are "saved" while living in sin we could embrace the idea that we aren't which would increase the fear of God which would drive us toward God to work out the character problems that keep us separated from Him.
1John 3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
1John 3:5 And you know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.
1John 3:6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
1John 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;
How righteous was Jesus? 50%, 75%, 90% or 100% righteous?
@AVB2 Concerning Rom 7, many teachers get this wrong. The assumption is that Paul is speaking of the normal life of a Christian in chapter 7. If that's the case then Christians can't stop sinning and Paul would have contradicted himself in Romans 6 and 8. So, is that what's happening? Is Paul saying we must stop sinning in Rom 6 but we can't in Rom 7 but then again in Rom 8 he says he's "free from the law of sin and death" which would contradict what he just said in Rom 7 if he meant in Rom 7 that he can't stop sinning?
OR....is it more likely that Paul was describing a past event but using a present tense form of literary device to describe it?
Example:
My cat catches lots of mice." This refers to the past (my cat, in the past, has caught lots of mice).
@AVB2 I agree. The change is so radical that a real believer STOPS SINNING.
1John 3:9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
This is what a "born again" person looks like.
OSAS wants to teach grace as a license for sin just like Jude warns about concerning the false teachers.
And, a new birth date doesn't preclude a new death. Scripture has warnings for BELIEVERS not just unbelievers. Saints can't fall from a faith they never had and it is not acceptable to teach a doctrine that is not affected by putting white out over most of the verses on the topic.
The problem with OSAS isn't the "always saved" part. It is the "always saved" while I continue in sin part. It is the lack of conditions because of their false understanding of what grace is and how it works.
Saints are ALWAYS SAVED as we ABIDE in Christ.
I guess you have much to boast! about @@JAGChristianos
I don’t actually think the Calvinist position is that God controls man’s will. It’s more like man’s will always chooses sin. God doesn’t have to control our will because our will is enslaved to sin.
I like to think I'm theologically smart, and then I listen to Bill and James, and realize I have so much more to learn
"Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies."
"For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"
"I am wiser than all my teachers, because I think about your rules. I have more understanding than the elders, because I follow your orders."
@@deliberativedisciple yet promoting theological ignorance is probably the most anti bible thing you could promote
Welcome to the Dunning Kruger effect lol
Yeah, it’s an annoying trait I see with those invested in theology. They’re constantly placing themselves on the same pedestal they came down from just a few days ago lol…
@@LEUNN_ How deeply do I need to study the opinions of the rabbis in the Talmud? Isn't that an amazing amount of "theological" knowledge?
I am a Molinist, not a Calvinist. but I'm so thankful for both these men and for this discussion. I'm willing to have my mind changed, and I am listening very carefully to Dr White because of his clear thought and committed position. Thank you both, all three of you, in fact.
I think an honest Molinist is calvanist enough for me ;)
@R H Evans I'm sorry. The question appears to me to be skewed. It's almost like one of those, "When did you stop beating your wife?" questions.
@@kevinteichroeb6997 Are you saying you don't serve the Lord Jesus Christ as your master?
@CJ Baierl lol
@@Jockito So your line of reasoning is IF God is in fact real and IF that God is Jesus Christ (meaning he would be the source and master of ALL THINGS) Than that would make Gods relationship with man akin to the relationship between a slave master and his slaves? IF Jesus Christ is God than wouldn't you be as much of a slave even if you don't worship him? If he's real you can't escape him his existing isn't contingent on your feelings being hurt. Nice try though.
WLC was being very nice here. He usually goes scorched earth and intellectually annihilates his opponents. This is brotherly love being shown by Craig.
I have been a calvinist all my life but after listening to Dr. Craig‘s arguments and how it solves the divine dilemma, molinism makes way more sense
🎯 You are a wise, genuine, caring, sincere and self-a-facing being, who clearly recognises OBJECTIVE TRUTH when it comes a calling....I know it's hard to accept but if anyone can do it YOU CAN. 👏🏿
That's simply how I feel about it. 1💗
Only the best! 🪞
(It was predetermined thst you would become a molinist)
Are you sure you understand Calvinism?
@@thomasc9036 he was predestined not to understand calvinism
It’s official. I am not an intellectual.
I just know that if somehow by some miracle I’d end up in heaven I’d be pretty upset that some of my fellows were sent to hell (I’d also be a bit miffed if I ended up in hell).
After watching two articulate well educated men pontificate the mystery of evil and why God has allowed its existence and sufferings, Romans 11:33-34 came poignantly to mind. The good news is that scripture assures us that evil is only temporary.1 John 3:8...Hallelujah to the Lamb!!!!! Cheers and blessing to everyone!!!!
Thanks to Justin for taking those subtle pauses through the debate, just to break it down for the audience. True professional
As a displaced Arminian who's got 18 months of Reformed stuff integrating itself into my 'Ologyisms', this has been an invaluable discussion I've had the privilege to listen to. Thank you Dr White & Dr Craig for showing me I'm not the only one searching for the real 'real'. To God be all the glory, whose ways are far higher than ours, whose understanding reaches far beyond our definition of understanding as we understand it; in Christ Jesus may we joyfully endure the dying of the 'old man' long enough to reach the life Jesus died to give us, by his grace alone may we love one another for his name's sake. Thank you again.
Amen
If you've checked out Arminianism and Calvinism, and are still searching for the real "real," I'd point you to look into what the Catholic Church *actually* teaches. It's not what your Protestant pastor or theologian says it is, btw.
I used to be a big fan of James White, and loved his arguments against Catholic theology. Then I actually read them for myself and was shocked how much he and others misrepresented them.
The first example, going back to the original reformers, is that Catholic teaching actually states that we can't earn our salvation. In fact, Catholic theology teaches that humans aren't even capable of performing ANY good works from our own human nature, let alone performing good works to earn salvation.
That's just a basic one, and there's a lot more.
@@KEP1983 LMBO
@@KEP1983 Catholicism teaches that your salvation is definitely based on works. What you said doesn't seem true.
@@KEP1983 is it April 1st?
Man, just watching this again and it really makes me wish WLC would do more "in house" debates. Whenever he does, he performs so well and it's fascinating to see the dialogue between two brothers who hold very different theological positions.
Re-watching this and I can't help but notice how JW keeps on begging the question. He (unknowingly?) pleads special treatment for his view on sovereignty. I'm surprised how he appeals to the recency of the Calvinistic theological model against Molinism, when he knows early Christians did not hold to theistic determinism? That they were actually against it. His argument lies on what he calls a "delimitating authority", and trying to make sense of his position he does indeed commit a fallacy in assuming that the counterfactual truths require a "maker". Counterfactuals if we understand that Logic flows from God (cf. Geisler), are truths that we can attribute to the facts/truths that's rooted in the very non-contradicting logic of God, in consideration of His determination to create free creatures. Thus, there's no need for a direct "maker" of the counterfactual truths. James also never addressed the issue thrown that Calvinism's logical implications (and some plainly admit) is that God is the author of evil (which is completely unbiblical and even blasphemous). He neither defended it nor affirmed it, he simply ignored it. The closest that he came to addressing it is reading from the Westminster Confession. James' argument is just not sound and I think WLC went easy on him really out of brotherly love. I'm surprised that some think JW did well on this conversation.
Agreed.
Indeed. White seems to believe his view is uniquely and directly derived from scripture rather than deduced from it when in fact both views are deduced. He simply is not aware of or acknowledging his bias while Craig does.
I agree that this was a debate which was quite clearly "won" by William Lane Craig. White was more agitated, dogmatic, and guilty of logical fallacies.
Please throw your hats in and debate Dr White on your critique of his assertions with Calvinism? I believe there is a very fine line that separates the two theists in their views regarding defining moral certitude of their established theological values. I love WLC and listen to most of his debates (If not all) but I believe JW did very well in this debate between two powerhouse theologians!!!! Proving, Establishing and attempting to know and present the characteristics of GOD is I believe is beyond man's abilities. Faith in Jesus is all we need!!! Blessings.
Is it possible that God could create creatures with libertarian freedom… creatures that could freely decide say, to get up early or sleep in or who could in a certain situation sin or refrain from sinning? If the answer to this question is “yes” then either God has middle knowledge or Open Theism is true. White has not thought this through and does not understand the discussion… he would, of course, disagree but there is a real blindness problem in some who, though able to see, refuse to open their eyes.
@@gingrai00 hit the nail on the head. White is too prideful to open his eyes.
I would have put this on my top five most heavily anticipated debates. This had to happen between Calvinism and Molinism; between Craig and White. I'm thankful for Justin.
Another important thing to note is that James has a major issue with the "delimiting" of God - or God's sovereignty or power being limited by external factors. A simple response to him is - what if it's within God's will to limit HIS OWN sovereignty, or stated another way, what if God can be maximally sovereign in character, but choose to not act on or take advantage of His sovereignty all the time? The fact that God has even permitted sin to exist is great evidence for this argument. God's choice to limit his control in order to give us true free will is not a bad thing, in fact it shows how loving He is... because He wants a true relationship with us, and true relationships require free-will on both sides of the relationship.
And is God not limited if He couldn’t create creatures with a free will?
@@MarkNOTW Great point!
Mic drop. I was thinking the same thing for much of the debate.
@@andrewscotteames4718 Thank you! I mean it really is crazy. James White attacks Bill, Bill responds, James White clearly runs away from Bill's response by attacking again.
Brother Kyle! I just want to, as respectfully as I can, point out that your argument is filled with unfounded presuppositions! First of all, I believe it is the wrong view of God to say that he limits his freedom. Not only does the Scripture teach anywhere that God has a desire to limit his freedom, God IS the sovereign. To say that he handed over his sovereignty to us is unbiblical and man-centered. Second, you assume that love can only come from choice. But this simply isn't what the Scripture teaches. The Scripture shows us that God raises dead people to life, people who can't respond to him! That is love! And those people, who were chosen for no other reason the kind intention of God's will. And those grace-showered, regenerated people now willingly and freely run to the savior. This is the greatest news of all.
My prayer brother Kyle is that we would all love the Scripture and submit to what it teaches, regardless of whether it fits into our logical categories!
I was not baptized into Calvin or Arminias or Molina. I've leaned toward Calvinism, and the church I worship at and love is led by Calvinist pastors who are passionate godly men. I have always struggled with the irresistible grace and limited atonement aspects of Calvinism. I do believe my salvation is all of God, and my sin is all of me. I've never found the arguments for Calvinistic determinism not making God the author of evil convincing. R.C. Sproul Jr. has said that God is the author/creator of sin, and i find that view abhorrent. At the end of the day, i find Molinism's position on middle knowledge compelling in that it gives God all the glory for my salvation and makes me responsible for my sin. I know i am an ignorant fool who can not comprehend the mind of God, and there are undoubtedly things i get wrong. That is why i will continue to strive to know and love and worship Him more and, in the end, put all my faith in Jesus.
Great comment Rob. May God preserve you until the trumpet sounds ✝️
Run from calvinism.....it's a lie out of the pits of HELL....and GOD CERTAINLY did NOT create sin....Satan and man did that all on there own when THEY CHOSE to sin...and the BLOOD JESUS shed was and us for ALL sin for ALL time....GOD is not slack as some men count slack ness but is long-suffering to us not WILLING that ANY should perish but that ALL would come to repentance ...for all that come to me I will in no wise cast out....JESUS said Jerusalem, Jerusalem how many times would I have gathered thee like a hen under her wings, BUT YOU would not.....GOD created NO man ot woman so that he could cast them into the lake of fire ....I don't care what doctor bottle stopper says I will believe GOD'S WORD....THANKS
Great comment. This is exactly how I feel too. Molinism while not perfect is at least a possible puzzle piece to the paradox sovereignty vs free will. I too want to remain humble in the fact that God’s way is higher than mine.
Isaiah 45:7
"I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things".
Job 1:6-12: The devil only does what God permits
Lamentations 3:37-38: Both good things and calamities come from the mouth of the Most High
Zephaniah 1:12: God will punish those who say in their heart, "The LORD will not do good, nor will he do evil"
Proverbs 16:4: "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble"
Both of these men influenced my Christian walk greatly in the 1990’s. Good to see them together to wrestle through a very complicated issue, even if from different perspectives.
Both of these men influenced my Christian walk (became a Christian at 61) in the last six years- until I started understanding Biblical revelation,then I realised only one of them preached the Truth.
@@chrismachin2166 Which one do you believe preached(es) the Truth??
I agree Joe and they both influenced me as well.
@Chris Machin Thank goodness you listen to WLC. Why would anyone want God to be the author of evil like James White?
@@jwatson181 He didn't say which one he listened too yet ;)
On a serious note- why are you being dishonest brother and falsely accusing James White of wanting God to be the author of evil??
Thank you to Justin, his team, Dr. White, and Dr. Craig for taking the time to have this discussion. This was helpful.
Mr White you mean. He never actually completed/earned a post grad yet. He got that title from a two bit seminary for his work on translation committees lol. Might as well call politicians and athletes doctors with honoraries too...
@@omnitheus5442 you’re not the greatest example of grace. You actually sound sad and petty.
@@omnitheus5442 I have no stake in defending James, but worrying about the merit of the title “Dr.” is to be more concerned with social custom than actual study and ability. After all, the whole prestige of earning a doctorate is based in a system where other doctors deem you a doctor (after completing much arbitrary coursework that funds the system as well as relevant research), but who made the first doctors doctors? There are plenty of ignorant people with doctorates running around and plenty of drop-out geniuses.
@@omnitheus5442 Man you are just the example of brotherly love the world needs. Well done brother.
I love a good discussion around this topic. I think that William Lane Craig has the stronger argument.
All of my Christian friends who accepted Christ and went into reformed theology all rejected God…
WLC is right, White’s world-view purports God as the author of evil.
The logical conclusion of White’s word-view is that God is cruel from the outset, people don’t have a chance as God has already decided your fate.
I have always liked the ‘middle knowledge of God’ theory that WLC proposes.
I love this quote by NT Wright, which puts the focus on Jesus.
“Jesus doesn't give an explanation for the pain and sorrow of the world. He comes where the pain is most acute and takes it upon himself. Jesus doesn't explain why there is suffering, illness, and death in the world. He brings healing and hope. He doesn't allow the problem of evil to be the subject of a seminar. He allows evil to do its worst to him. He exhausts it, drains its power, and emerges with new life.”
So you agree with what you prefer and not what Scripture seems to teach. Got it
I have plenty of friends that are Calvinist, and they never fell away and even respect God more then most other Christians.
@@dallasburns677 you wouldn’t have sin, need a Bible, have a Christ, if calvinism was true. You’d not need a sermon on the mount. You’d not need faith. No one can read the Bible and at the end say “got it, I control nothing so no need to try and do anything, it’s already decided.”
That's a terrible straw man of Calvin is saaying
@@libertarian85 I await you explaining what I typed above that isn’t demanded by a belief in an omnipotent and omniscient being that predestined all choice at creation. God wrote the script and hit play, the only decision exercised was God at creation.
Such a great conversation. As a History/ Philosophy double major who was born again after three years of research, these types of conversations help me lead me to a denomination. It’s hard for me to not believe in free will.
@@Nunya1387 I hope you will keep reading the Bible and praying for answers. I can't imagine the emptiness of life without God...
@@Nunya1387 I'd love to dialogue with you! Of course I have the ulterior motive of getting you to become a Christian!
@@Nunya1387 I'm not a Calvinist but I am a Christian. The good news is that you don't have to subscribe to either of these views to have a very real and joyful relationship with Jesus Christ you place your full trust in the fact that he deeply loves you and died on the cross for you and rose from the grave. I'm praying you will find the hope and joy in Christ that God desires for you God bless!
I lean toward Calvinism. There is free willl but sinners will always freely choose sin. Christ said anyone who sins is a slave to sin. Paul said in Ephesians you were dead in you sins and transgressions. Prior to Christ none of us were good no not one. Often free willers will throw out Joshua saying choose this day whom you shall serve. Well what happened. They continued in their sin. You do not have to be a Calvinist to be a Christian or saved. For most of my Christian life I was a Armenian
@@davidhanlon1158 Freely choosing sin makes no sense. It's a Calvinist made up argument to try and get round the fact that the God Calvinists present is determining every action you will ever take. So whichever way you slice it you are not freely choosing sin, you have been determined to sin. If you are freely choosing to sin then you are not truly free. The Calvinist system of thought has to change the clear meaning of scripture to fit what they believe
I am a reformed pastor who has been for some 30 years and this was helpful to frame the issue in a general way. I would encourage looking at his issue through the lens of our spiritual capacity or ability to better arrive at a more helpful conclusion. I appreciate both men and I particularly appreciate the winsome and gracious approach of WLC. I respect James White and have even had him in our church, but the snarky approach and lack of grace at times are off-putting. WLC final point of consistency with Scripture and how there are many doctrines that are not explicit in the Word and yet have been embraced by Reformed thinkers was a solid and sound retort to James. There are times in which Reformed people are so enshrined in their own echo chamber that they lose perspective of the value and quality of other sincere views of the workings of God.
@Dan Miller You’re spot on! Enjoyed the debate, and even more I enjoyed WLC gracious approach. I really appreciate James White contribution to the body of Christ, but I don’t really like the way he dealt/approached with WLC.
What's an example of reformed theology that can't be founded in scripture? The examples given by WLC surely can! They didn't come from external philosophy and get applies to the scripture. They flowed from greater discussion and analysis of the scripture.
That's the main difference between the two. Molinism takes external philosophy that finds no place in scripture and looks at scripture through that lens. Calvinism, instead, take scripture in full and makes philosophical conclusions and extrapolations from it.
@@Sgman1991 Agree!
James lacks a gracious spirit - making faces, etc.
Don’t fall into the fallacy of ad hominem. The spirit something is said in has no bearing on if what was said is true or false, scriptural or lies.
It's about time this happens! No matter who you like, you have to admit that this will be interesting and that they should definitely do an informal, in person debate. Maybe several of them. Glad Craig finally agreed to do this.
I hope they do a serious debate on this issue because at 40:19 he really completely dismissed what James had just said and goes on a rant over hypercalvinism which James and everyone who is calvinist don't even believe in. James just literally quoted the westminster and spoke about secondary causes...explaining how Joseph's brothers weren't puppets. God simply decreed that they would freely chose according to their nature willingly without as the westminster puts it ''making violence to the will''. Then William basically argues that calvinism makes Joseph's brothers puppets. I was astonished about this answer I mean, there was absolutely no answer to what James had actually said. I felt like William did not ever read any serious reformed calvinistic literature at all. I appreciate the guy but I was very disapointed.
I love how James just presupposes that his interpretation of scripture is the original intent of the authors and then accuses everyone else of following a later man-made interpretation. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
That’s ultimately what drove me from the reformed camp. Wild proof texting, eisegetical readings of passages, and massive philosophical assumptions were dumped on to the scriptures by my teachers all while they accused the other guys of doing that very thing and demanding that I not read their materials. It felt like the theological equivalent of gaslighting. Eventually, I started reading more than reformed theologians and I started to realize how much grander the scriptures could be than a simple determinist reading allowed.
I noticed this too. He stated that molinism is not what the Pentateuchal author had in mind. Well certainly Calvinism wasn’t either. Nor did Jonah have in mind the Son of man’s crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and postmortem appearances when he recorded his experience in the whale’s belly. Jesus just gave light to what formerly wasn’t fully revealed. In the same way a soteriological viewpoint that is consistent with scripture, no matter how far removed to the writings, gives light today to what was formerly written.
Bob Wilkin wiped the floor with him in the Free Grace v Lordship Salvation debate and left him floundering.
Well exactly!
thats basically calvinism
Enjoying the discussion. I have read a majority of WLC's works and enjoyed them thoroughly. My issue with WLC's statements about free will is this: God exists in and out of time - He is the only constant. The moment He spoke reality into existence (Gen 1:1), He also spoke reality to its completion (Rev 22:20). The story was finished the moment it began. God knew every structure at the atomic level and every moment that would happen - according to His will. God has a priori knowledge (spiritual) of every a posteriori (temporal) event. If it was/is allowed, it was deemed so at the moment of creation. We are not experiencing events in the same manner as God, and we attempt to place ourselves at the center of His story. We have the end of the story (Rev 22:20). The conversations we are having about are all known by God since the beginning.
If I understood your point correctly I would ask whether foreknowledge is the same as causing the subsequent event if you know what I mean. How everything started and ended was according to His will because we simply cannot change the base structure that he's put in place, but we can change our behaviour and desire and direction we will move and subsequently be for eternity. I hope I haven't completely missed your point here but I just wanted to share some of my thoughts on it because its super interesting to discuss.
@@dum4197 Thank you for replying. I appreciate it very much. Hope this may clarify for the conversation:
From the perspective of God that I believe (Reformed Theology), God is sovereign in all aspects within (temporal) and outside (spiritual) of creation. My argument is that if we believe that God is: Omniscient (all-knowing), Omnipresent (existing at all places at all times), Omnipotent (unending power and unceasing will), then the question follows - Did/Does God know every measure of everything He created and its intended result? Any answer but yes removes an attribute mentioned previously from God.
Another way to phrase it is: As the Bible tells us, He is the author of faith, meaning that everything to Him is foreknown by His "pen." - would an author create without knowing the creation's role in the story? If His will must be done, then surely someone would have to carry it out in the temporal by His divine providence. If not, then the story would be open-ended and subject to change based on the creation's will, not the Author's. God is not reactionary.
We live out in real-time (temporal) the story that was finished before He created the Heavens and the Earth. We see countless times when agents of God claim that He appointed them before they were born. Though I don't mean it as a flippant answer, I usually say - someone had to be Judas, and to think otherwise would place us in a position of thinking that God did not know.
So does God act differently out of time as he does in time? If God loves a babe the moment he's born so much that if that babe should die as an infant God welcomes that Babe into his (God's) Kingdom, does his love endure forever for that babe? Suppose now that God knows if that babe should live and grow to be Adolph Hitler, does God's love for that babe change based on that middle knowledge?
Very interesting debate. Wish James white actually tried to defend the claims against him about the idea of God causing evil. I also wish WLC used more scripture to defend his idea, which I know there is but he mostly used philosophy.
It's because Molinism isn't dependent on Scripture.
@@timbushong4387 except it is. Craig addressed that in the beginning. God is sovereign while man is also 100% accountable. It’s still odd to me that it’s even a debate.
@@timbushong4387 well I disagree as I said in my original comment.
@@logosgaming1987 Determinism has verses that are not a stretch to exegete regarding God's will Ephesians 1:11, Acts 2:23, Romans 9: 14-23 is really right there to exegete in this way.. But Molinism doesn't have such verses to exegete regarding God's will...it just doesn't. So, starting from God's word, it is literally impossible to draw out Molinism.. it is simply a plausible theory of a Christian, not a direct attempt to draw from Scripture or exegete
In 1 Samuel 23:7-13, God foreknows two counterfacturals that ultimately never take place because David acts on this "middle" knowledge of sorts to get the heck out of dodge. Now if David can act on middle knowledge, surely the LORD can.
Very disappointed that White never truly addressed Craig's accusation that Calvinism makes God the author of evil. His insistence that the Calvinist view is scriptural holds no weight without thoroughly treating what his own view says about the nature of God. Clearly, Craig was trying to take the conversation there (over and over again), but White seemed to consistently avoid it. I was really excited to hear this conversation, but I was disappointed when it failed to adequately address the simple issue of God as the author of evil.
I agree that White doesn't seem to answer that. But he seems to trying to dig in on the grounding and was just told that objection held no weight with no real explanation. So White tried to say why it does. It seemed White was showing not only why Molinism is not a good answer to evil, but not a good answer for anything, but ended up not really dealing with the actual topic.
What do you mean by "truly address"? I have to ask this, because there are some folks who hear the answer but don't like it, so they then accuse the answerer of not "truly addressing" it.
White did address it. He addressed it fully, as well. God freely determined to create all things in accordance with the counsel of His own will for the purpose of bringing all things under subjection to the Son to the glory of God (Ephesians 1, Colossians 1, Romans 9).
All things means all things including all things good and evil just as all authorities, powers and dominion on earth AND IN HEAVEN includes Satan and the fallen angels.
In other words, God purposes evil. It isn't something from outside His purview that enters into His hypothetical calculations and He must therefore try to deal with it as best He can. No, He instead purposes it. It would not exist unless He purposed it. But the reason why He purposed man to commit it is not why man purposes to commit it. This is the part folks don't like. They don't like the idea of a God who has purposed them to do something. They instead are convinced by the serpent's lie ("you shall be as God") which tells them they are free autonomous creatures incapable of being purposed to do anything apart from their own autonomous free will.
Craig has no Biblical answer for this. He has a "philosophical plausibility" which is just the same as saying, "that friendly little snake in Eden told me this is true." In other words, it's not the truth God has revealed to us in the pages of Scripture. It's instead a lie Satan told in the garden which was played out in accordance with God's free, predetermined counsel. God has determined that Bill be deceived for the purpose of bringing all things in subjection to the Son. Bill should be very frightened by this, but of course he isn't, because deceived people aren't.
@@rofyleI would recommend applying some red letter theology to your ideas. Read the teachings of Jesus extremely carefully, and then revisit these texts. I don't see how Calvinism logically follows from the way Jesus speaks about coming to know God and how He speaks about the very nature of God. He says He does what His father is doing - communing with God, healing the sick, forgiving the sins of mankind. What does Jesus not do? Arbitrarily force people to do things, kill people, etc...
How can one who is Love and Light in His very nature (1 John 4) _purpose_ evil, aka create it by intention and impose it on unwilling creatures? That is not perfectly loving. That is cruelty - and that isn't my morality speaking, I don't see how it isn't objective that a being who forces these things isn't evil. It's coercion. Don't you believe coercion is wrong? If I force a woman to have sex with me, it's rape and she is violated. So, you're saying every woman who has been raped has been forced into that not because a man sinned and freely chose to rape her, but because God made it so. Do you see how sin starts to not make sense? How is the man doing something morally wrong / 'missing the mark' if he had no choice in the first place? How can God hold the man morally culpable? The entire logistical system breaks down. I believe God can make greater purpose out of these events, but to believe it is His will is disturbing theology.
On Romans 9: There are so many reasons I think the pre-deterministic interpretation is misguided. The biggest thing, I think, is this: why would Paul say, in Romans 9:22, that God has "endured with much patience" the vessels he was preparing for destruction? Need God endure the rebellious people referenced in this Scripture if He was the one _already making them_ rebellious? It makes much more sense that the people were already rebellious by their own choice. Why would a God who is described as patient many times need any sort of patience if he could arbitrarily determine what He wants at any time? Why not just skip the whole "people living a physical life on earth" and skip right to Heaven and Hell with respective humans? What is the point of existing _now?_
I don't disagree that suffering is never something God wills, because often out of suffering are beautiful lessons learned or new life grows. But why does Jesus say that there is a _thief_ who kills, steals, and destroys, but He comes to give life and give it abundantly? There's a discrepancy from who is the destroyer and who is the author of life. God created Satan, yes, and all things exist by Jesus Christ - but to posit Satan is constantly described as His adversary and actively working against the will of God. Some food for thought for you.
@@winterlogical First, if you're going to apply some red letter theology as you put it, then it would probably help if you start with red letters that actually exist rather than with some red letters you have invented off the top of your head.
John 5:19-24
19 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son GIVES LIFE TO WHOM HE WILL. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
Jesus says in words as crimson as the blood that flowed from Calvary, "the Son gives life to whom He will." This is what He sees the Father doing. He is even going to press on this further in the very next chapter of John where He will say no one can come to the Son unless the Father who sent the Son draws him. He will press this even further in chapter 10 where He will say He came to lay His life down for the sheep, and then He will then turn to some unbelieving Jews and say to them, "You do not believe because you are not My sheep."
You have this all backwards. You will say He gives life to those who will rather than to those He wills. You will say all who come will the Father draw. And you will even say those unbelieving Jews in John 10 were not sheep because they did not believe rather than the other way around as Jesus stated.
So you see, if you're going to develop your theology from Jesus' own words, then you really must start with the words Jesus actually said rather than words He didn't say, because otherwise what you end up developing is a theology of mist and sand built on lies.
@@winterlogical Second, who are these unwilling creatures you speak of? I know of no such creature who has ever existed. A creature unwilling to murder, but who somehow still murders anyway? What sinner is this? There is no such creature save but the one who lives in your own straw man argument.
Calvinists do not say God imposes His will upon unwilling creatures. Quite the opposite. Man does what it is in his nature to do. He wills only evil continuously. God looks down from heaven upon the children of men. There are none who do good, no not one. Their mouth is like the mouth of a poisonous asp. They lie, blaspheme and murder continuously. They sin because they will to sin.
As for "arbitrarily", this is your word, not mine. My God does nothing arbitrarily. My God had predestined all that will come to pass for the purpose of glorifying His name through the Son.
In other words, why does evil exist? Why do babies die? Why do animals suffer? Why do people destroy?
I will tell you why. So that the Son might be glorified in both His mercy and justice.
It's not God's mercy you have a problem with. It's His justice that troubles you. God does not just predestine some people to hell. He is right to do so.
If there be anything in creation more worthy of glory than God, anything at all, than that thing would itself be God above God. God by necessity must be concerned with His glory, for there is nothing in all creation more glorious than He.
This means ALL His attributes must be glorified, not only His love and mercy, but also His wisdom, His justice, His anger and His holiness.
Satan is but a mere creature. He is not God's opposite. God has no opposite. There is none who can oppose Him or say to Him, "By what right have You done this?"
God does no evil Himself, but He certainly does predestine it. Evil would not exist had He not willed it to exist. Who was it who gave to Satan a fallible heart that would fall to pride? If you have a problem with this, then you will have a tremendous problem with 1 Kings 22
To paraphrase a familiar William Lane Craig quote: The man who does not realize that he’s likewise doing philosophy is the one most apt to be fooled by philosophy.
100% agree.
Nailed it.
Very true.
This is the irony of all these people in the comments saying, “one guy was biblical while one was philosophical”.
Well, it depends on what you mean by philosophy. Philosophy in the general sense is not the same as forcing one specific philosophical method.
Seems a bit hubristic to me that James White can say that Molinism is an external ideology that WLC is backwards applying to scripture but then turn around and say that Calvinism isn’t the same thing? Both of these thought systems are in the same category: theological frameworks that attempt to make sense of scriptural data. For White to say that Calvinism is exempt from this label and that it is 100% scripturally evident is simply a claim with no objective evidence from scripture. He came across as very intellectually close minded and dishonest here.
You can arrive at the tenets of Calvinism by reading the Bible. You have to have Molinism explained to you
@@CoachEgg
So …I had to have the trinity explained to me too
@@CoachEgg false. You cannot objectively read the Bible and arrive at the tenets of Calvinism without it being framed in that view. Not even Calvin reached his conclusions by objectively reading scripture. He borrowed and misinterpreted much of St. Augustine's work on predestination to develop this system.
TBH I felt like WLC held back. He treats his brothers differently to non believers in a debate. Respect.
I’m not sure he even understands White’s position. He just repeats it makes God evil.
@@Redeemedbylove1987 the only defense White had for that point was that he doesn’t. Yet his determinism logically makes God the author of evil.
@@jessemendoza4647 If God does not stop man from committing evil, that doesn’t make God evil.
@@jessemendoza4647 Did God commit evil by sending Jesus to die on the cross? If you answer yes, then you dont understand Christianity. If you answer no, then welcome to Calvinism.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 Jesus says that there is no greater love than the one who lays down his life for his friends. No where in there is Calvinism even hinted. That’s one of the major issues with Calvinism, finding Calvinism in places where there is none.
This conversation was Incredibly fruitful. Thank you brother for getting these debates together. It’s always a delight to see people sharing their perspectives/views without being disrespectful.
I agree. How refreshing is it to have a debate where the positions are attacked/defended, rather than the speakers themselves.
James's facial expressions were far from polite and he commited a blatant genetic fallacy when it came to the origins of molinism.
@@rybr5423 okay thank goodness someone else noticed.
@@rybr5423 Just a reminder, people, calling Molina one of the greatest theologians ever: not genetic fallacy. Saying Molina isn't one of the greatest theologians ever, genetic fallacy.
In other words, its only a fallacy if the guy you are rooting against is doing it.
very very funny
“That’s because you’re a determinist.” WLC
Best part of the discussion.
I can't understand how Molinism isn't also determinist. Middle knowledge determines how people will act before any person is created and able to make a free choice. God then determines which of those truth statements about 'free' decisions are going to be instantiated.
It's all determined before the first creative word of God ever happens.
God has declared the end from the beginning.
@@Sgman1991 : I think the difficulty is that the mindset of the Christian who embraces Calvinism is that God's sovereignty entails that he explicitly wills every last, tiny, detail of everything that happens. The alternative is that God's sovereignty allows large degrees of true libertarian freedom to play out, while ensuring the big picture plan of salvation, and each individual's life plays out according to his will.
So God knew that if I passed the Baptist Church at 11:03 on a cold wintery day in 1980 where my brother attended, I would stop and wait for him, become cold, and enter, whereupon I heard the sermon and the song that would begin my several month long conversion experience -- and he orchestrated that sequence of events to come to pass. But did he choose that I would wear jeans instead of dress pants? or a blue shirt instead of a yellow shirt? I sincerely doubt it.
Furthermore, over that time he poured out his grace on me to soften my heart to be able to accept what he was revealing. But did he determine that I respond and submit my will to his? No, I don't think he did. And I don't think he logically could. If God can simply force me to believe, then he might as well have created the eternal kingdom from the get-go and simply included only the elect, forcing them to believe. There is some reason this world _necessarily_ exists as a precursor to the eternal kingdom (because if it is not necessary, then God truly is the author of evil under any system).
I think Molinism is the only system which makes sense of how divine sovereignty and human free will are balanced, why we have this fallen, broken world at all, and why God did not simply create the eternal kingdom. Calvinists seem to forget that this world is not our home; not our final state, and are unable to plausibly explain why this current state is necessary.
WLC crushed it. I wonder if Mr. White knows that Calvinism was never believed by the Apostles and early church. The Apostles and early church believed in Man's free will. See Dr. Ken Wilson's book THE FOUNDATION OF AUGUSTINIAN CALVINISM.
@@Sgman1991 Middle knowledge does not determine how people will act; God only knows how so-and-so will act under certain conditions. If you are a Calvinist, it seem to me that the reason you can't see it is because you are looking at it from the presupposition of irresistible grace or God's movements within the will for men to act as God decrees; but if you remove both assumptions, and work from the premise that God's grace is not irresistible nor does He move within the mind and heart of individuals so they act according to decree and cannot do otherwise, it might seem more plausible. God works all things around the individual; He does not act directly upon or within the individual's will except from outside allowing the person to respond according to his own choosing.
I do really dislike the pride that Calvinists assume by claiming they are the only ones with the Biblical perspective here and that the apostles and everyone in the Bible would have agreed with them. These are very high-level theological debates and I think it's very uncharitable to castigate your opponents as having a heretical view to the Bible instead of explaining why that is. Just felt like White came to read the Bible and not debate anything and that's really sad considering that he should know that WLC has read the Bible. How hard is it to believe that someone can read the Bible and have a different understanding from you? It happens all the time in Bible studies that I have been to, but I rarely go around telling people that the Bible doesn't support what they are saying. You cannot infer a theology from Scripture and then claim it is explicit to the text. Weigh the evidence, read the Bible, but make an argument on the balance of scriptural weight that each has, because he's surely got to know that there are verses with very free will language as well, right?
This was an epic debate between two theological giants. We need more of these discussions.
Craig is a giant for sure. White has manipulated his minions into believing that he is...
The only thing giant about about white is his ego.
White isn’t a giant. He’s a poser. His “Dr.” title comes from unaccredited programs.
White is a theological giant?
@@drazenkekovic3012 That explains SO much! I have listened to this guy off and on for years and wondered how he could have a PhD or ThD and understand so little of the positions with which he disagrees.
Whatever you believe about WLC, he is a very polite and warm participant in this exchange.
He’s also correct. White could be reading from the Quran how he lands
Dang I'm 30 mins in and this is the most high tier debate I've ever seen. I watch a lot of debates and my head is hurting! Great, great stuff.
I feel that. Lol!
My favorite debates are the Jerry Walls Calvinism debate, and the Monster God debate with Brian Zahnd and Michael Brown.
@@saulgoo2334consider the bahnsen Stein debate (remaster only. Audio is terrible midway through the original)
Think this through. This one verse refutes hyper Calvinism; Matthew 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen." If Calvinism were true, the verse would/must say, "Few are chosen."
Chosen by whom? 😅
General call vs effectual call. Look it up and draw your own conclusions from that.
@@leesisaiahBy God
@@redsilifek4557
You're adding content not in the text. Your conclusion must itself be supported by evidence.
@@JD-xz1mxit logically can't be an effectual call or it would be "many are called and many are chosen"
WOOOWWWW I'm a HUGE fan of Dr. White AND Dr. Craig. This is what happens when an unstoppable bullet meets an unpenetrable wall.
I am really looking forward to this
Same, I am literally way too excited for this😂
Have you ever heard white talk about calvinism? Dude's super intellectually dishonest . Might not call him an unstoppable wall
@@theoffensivegamer9943 Have you ever heard Craig talk about creationism? Dude's super intellectually dishonest. Might not call him an unstoppable bullet.
See how that works?
Don't poison the well. Watch the debate before jumping to conclusions. Don't be that WLC fanboy who bullies anyone who disagrees with Pope William (and I know, the same rebuke must be delivered to cage-stage Calvinists, but cage-stage behavior isn't a Calvinist exclusive).
@@juilianbautista4067 lol sure... We square on that one. But when it comes to his Molinism and calvinism he is very straight forward. His defenders class prove this. How he speaks about calvinism even made me think he was a calvinist
Regardless of who wins this debate/discussion, we know this is going to be a highly interesting and informative discussion, hopefully this is the first of many!!
Thanks to Bill Craig. His willingness to speak into these matters is such a blessing to the church. James as well but I just can't be won over by Calvinism.
Be won over by the Bible instead, then when you realize Calvinism is just a shorthand label, it's easier to confess it
do you agree with Molinism? This is an important point. You may not agree with Calvinism but the alternative, Molininism, is that a more or less reasonable view?
Ya, I'm in no way convinced by Calvinism. At all. I lean more toward molinism but also realize that this topic is heavily nuanced and I simply can't engage in this topic the way I'd like. That's why I appreciate Craig. He does a great job explaining it
@@theologymatters5127 I recommend reading Herman bavinck's treatise on supralapsarianism v infralapsarianism to get a better handle on the issue of molinism v Calvinism. It's helpful to see how God interacts with time, which is fundamentally the thing at issue between these views, and also arminianism and open Theism
@@horrificpleasantry9474 Thanks for the input. I will most definitely put that book on my list
"You contribute nothing to your salvation but the sin that makes it necessary".
Only WLC showed up to discuss the problem of evil. Although I'm not quite convinced of the truth of Molinism, WLC defended it well and made clear points. JW spent almost all his time on the attack and barely touched on the supposed topic of the debate. The closest he came was to say God does not author evil, but rather restrains it. This was based on passages which are clearly meant to be exceptional cases of God's intervention and not the normative way God interacts with His creatures. Yet, JW never denied the absolute determinism of God and so the question of the author of evil remains.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
I think it’s because it’s more of an emotional argument. Molonists need to demonstrate that God could not be sovereign over evil and also holy. Also, Molonism doesn’t solve the “problem” of evil as evil still exists. Meaning a holy God allowed for the creation of a world where evil events would take place.
Of course, Calvinism teaches an evil God and excuses sinners. It’s unbiblical, praise God I don’t follow that anymore.
As is the continual tactic of James white when he approaches soteriology.
@@elkellenhabla the problem isn't that God is sovereign over evil. The problem is that God authored/planned/bring about/decreed/commanded/created(whatever terminologies Calvinist like to use. It's all just a word play for Calvinist to run away from the question). By DEFINITION (meaning, it can't get more basic/fundamental than this), someone who authored/planned/bring about/decreed/commanded/created evil cannot be holy, just like being a bachelor cannot mean you're married at the same time.
(Not a molinist, anyway)
I like how James white says “so the people 3,000 years ago couldn’t understand this cuz they didn’t have molonism” as if there are Calvinists who lived back that.
Calvin's theology wasn't created by Calvin...it was grounded upon the church father's understanding of the Scriptures.
Douglas McNay
Molonists would say the same. James White has “opinions” about what scripture is saying, Molonists also rely on scripture, they just interpret it differently.
So are you saying that no one 2000 years ago could have come to the conclusion based on reading the scriptures that man is totally depraved, that a person cannot lose their salvation, election, predestination, God causing all things and so on? My point is that there were people that came to the same conclusions as Calvinists today and both do so based on the scriptures.
@@douglasmcnay644 Correct, it was not created by Calvin. It was created by Augustine and the Manichaeist ideology of determinism he brought into Christianity after his conversion. Hard determinism was never present in Christian theology prior to Augustine nor was it held by any of the church fathers before him. He introduced this foreign concept into Christianity and Calvin propagated it. Feel free to research the history regarding this. Not only this but hard determinism is unsupported by Scripture - one has to read this into the text and misrepresent passages, such as Romans 9, by taking them out of context in order to forward this view.
@@Keegan_N except its not hard determinism but soft determinism or compatabilism, thats the orthodox reformed view. Yet again you unreformed fail to understand the basics. Manichaeist had deterministic gnostic teachings, not compatabilism from Scriptures. Teachings of St. Augustine is heavenly above manichaeist, it's biblical. And there is no misrepresentation of the passages, Tota Scriptura speaks about predestination. You are a slanderer, repent. God is not a gentleman, and you want Him to be. You have nothing on reformed theology that was payed in blood. All you have is strawman and alleged certainty fallacies.
I grew up attending both non-denominational and reformed church bodies, and I have found a great sense of value and truth offered from both sects. I think I am fairly level headed when assessing this, and I have to say that the Calvinist (JW) really showed a lot of the negative sides that are often associated with Calvinism.
He quoted Calvinist doctrines more frequently and almost more authoritatively than he quoted the Bible. He carried a noticeable sense of argumentative antagonism and self-assured arrogance. Lastly, he did not answer questions - he almost exclusively attacked and asked questions. The most noteworthy point to me was when JW repeatedly refused to answer the Molinist (WLC) when we addressed the Calvinist issue of God causing evil.
This was a really good discussion, but while WLC and the host were here for a discussion/debate, JW seemed to be here to argue. WLC had a few word choices pertaining to God's control which I disagreed with, but I think he won this encounter hand over fist.
Yea I think James was getting frustrated because bill wasn’t showing any scriptures In the Bible to back his claim. He was quoting Scrooge. Oh well merry Christmas.
@@thafurr9537 that's because both views can be argued from scripture. That approach would only lead to them throwing different passages at each other that seems to support their view. WLC could do that with is evident from the bible passages brought up. What he did instead was to show that his was the more reasonable system. Being consistent automatically doesn't mean you are correct.
@@sarasho6098 what white said from scriptures is what Calvinist believe without altering or adding? Us Christian don’t want to label God as the author of evil, and I get that. Romans 20 but who are you, mere man, to talk back to God? Will what is formed say to the one who formed it? Why did you make me like this? Or had the potter no right over the clay, to make from the same lump one piece of pottery for honor and another for dishonor? And what if God, desiring to display his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience objects of wrath ready for destruction? And what if, he did this to make known the riches of his glory on objects of mercy that (he) prepared (before hand) for glory on us. To say God is not completely sovereign and ultimately he can do as he please sound almost sinful? To me of course. To compare God to one of us and hold him account for evil is silly. People are born to be a slave to sin, and he the creator has every right to use his creation for whatever purpose he wants. Honorable or dishonorable. Molonism has to be added in the text to work, white stands firm on the text with not adding In nothing. With much love and grace awesome that we’re able to agree to disagree amen but ultimately faith in Christ is key. Amen brother
@@thafurr9537 very well said, amen
Definitely hard for Calvinists to deny the fact that their theology/doctrine teaches that God causes His creatures to commit evil acts and then condemns them for actions He supposedly causes. I definitely had to reject that theology because it makes God a moral monster. Brother James doesn’t even seem to even try.
Justin is quite simply the best host for these debates.
God restrains us from being as evil as we could.
He never forces us to be more evil than we are.
But He MADE us this evil. God doesnt force us to be more evil than He already made us. This is what calvinism teaches.
@@theoffensivegamer9943 For the sake of discussion, let's project what we are onto God and say that God is responsible for our evil actions.
1. Why would He teach against evil?
2. Why would He seek to destroy evil in the end?
3. If God actively seeks to mitigate/destroy evil, is He evil?
@@kevinmiller6443 Evil doesn't actually get destroyed in the end by God, but merely punished for eternity in Hell. Evil still exists for eternity.
@@Jockito That's a fair point given Revelation 20: 10. I should have been more precise in how God deals with evil in the end. He doesn't actually destroy it in the conventional and finite sense, He punishes it for eternity in the "lake of fire."
@@Jockito ... The wicked do not have immortality. Evil and Evil doers will be completely eradicated from the entire universe.
It’s amazing how Dr. Craig respectfully explains the Molinist theory in a simple way which clearly shows God is not the author of sin and evil, and yet still has ultimately control on what will happen in all situations. Meanwhile, Mr. White talks in circles and never actually explains how in his view (Calvinism), God is in charge of every action we do including evil but yet God is not responsible for that evil committed. It seems so obviously out of sync with what scripture teaches, which is to say God is just, loving, sovereign, and omniscient…and Molinism allows for all of these in a much more plausible way I think. Like Mr. White, most Calvinist generally say it is up to God to do what He will (which is of course true at face value), and then they quote the scripture of the potter and his clay; however, the issue is that God is not a God of self-contradiction. When the bible says God is good and is not evil, it means just what it says, that God can do no evil because it is opposite of his very nature (1 John 1:5 is just one example). The bible also speaks of God as a loving father, so what father would force their child to do evil and then punish them for said evil...this would be a very unloving view of God and one I fully reject. If I sin and do evil, it is of my own free-will and I only have myself to blame. Thank you God for loving and saving me in spite of my sin, and for not forcing any sinful act upon me for which I have no choice but to commit.
Ben. Spot on. Among many things OF Calvinism, it is inconsistent and illogical if one reads scripture carefully.
I think that at 40:19 he really completely dismissed what James had just said and goes on a rant over hypercalvinism which James and everyone who is calvinist don't even believe in. James just literally quoted the westminster and spoke about secondary causes...explaining how Joseph's brothers weren't puppets. God simply decreed that they would freely chose according to their nature willingly without as the westminster puts it ''making violence to the will''. Then William basically argues that calvinism makes Joseph's brothers puppets. I was astonished about this answer I mean, there was absolutely no answer to what James had actually said. I felt like William did not ever read any serious reformed calvinistic literature at all. I appreciate the guy but I was very disapointed.
You seem confused. Calvinists don't believe that God forces or infuse any malice in man. God decrees all things but as our confessions say, God uses secondary causes. White spoke about God actually restraining the evil of men because by nature they only do that which is evil willingly and freely. I believe that you should seriously read what we believe instead of making false accusations over what we believe brother. I say this in love.
@@opendebate7414 Thanks for the response. The issue to me is that Calvinists say once God decrees a person will sin (via secondary causes or not) then at that point there is nothing the person can do not to sin. They have no say in the matter ultimately. This is the real difference in my opinion. I believe Calvinist would say it is God who decides who will sin and He decides who will make it to Heaven based on His decrees, and He will choose as He sees fit...nothing is really in our control (i.e. referring to 2 of the 5 Calvinist points Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement). In contrast, I believe the bible is clear that it is God's will that no one should perish but all have the same opportunity to everlasting life. Just like I believe it is my choice to accept or reject his free gift of salvation (via my own free-will), I also believe it is my choice to sin or not sin, and God is not the ultimate cause of those choices (via His decrees). Calvinism would say God causes his decrees to come to pass (whether that is for me to sin or for me to be saved) and it is out of my control completely. In contrast, Molinism would say it is 100% our choice to sin or not to sin (as it is my choice to accept Christ or not), and God doesn't cause it or force the outcome; however, God knowing the answer to all truth proposition would know the outcome in advance of what I would freely choose to do....and thus can accomplish His plans ultimately based on that level of middle knowledge. If I misrepresented the Calvinist view, I apologize and feel free to correct my misunderstandings.
@@opendebate7414 I suggest you listen to the arguments in favor of cavinism and (my argument) the one against by Craig.
The podcast Unbelievable: debate of J. White vs. W Craig.
Nothing in my writing is inconsistent with Cavinist teaching.
Calvinists constantly argue that the Molina view and the Arminian view argue against the sovergnty of God.
Not true, we argue that the sovernty of God as described by Calvinists is in error. We never argue that God is not sovereign just NOT the way Calvinists argue God's sovereign power..
Yes, agreed, God can do anything, but scripture does not support that He does or did what Calvinists claim.
It's a good debate to watch, no matter your view.
White NEVER answered the simple question, "given Calvinism, how is God not the author of evil?" He never has because he can't. He knows that he can't use compatibalism against Craig because Craig is an elite philosopher who understands logic on another level.
Yet Bill never answered who created the world that God is left to deal with. Craig quote " "things outside God's control" Really? Outside the sovereignty of God?
Craig " though molinism in NOT TAUGHT in the scriptures, it is, nether-the-less, consistent with scripture". That's philosophy NOT exegesis.
Philosopher vs. theologian? Scrooge vs. God? I'll take the theologian and God all day long.
Philosophy imports flawed man-made philosophy on to scripture. A Theologian drives his understanding from the exegesis of scripture. Why does the Philosopher do this? To protect the almighty autonomous sovereign "asceity" of man. So the point?
As for evil, God ordains the end, decree, and the means to that end, called providence.
God decrees everything that comes to pass yet so as not the author of evil.
Providence is where God is sovereignly directing that end through secondary means. Evil is introduced, providentially into the world by man not God. The reason people don't understand Calvinism is because they've NEVER read them! I would implore you my friend to read the puritans, Palmer, Pink, Sproul, Spurgeon, etc. to get a better understanding. God bless!
@@BonusHole Calvin didn't bring "new" information
@@BonusHole it's just the same as arminianism, no new info added just different interpretation
@@mmttomb3 so true
I love watching Dr. William Lane Craig. But on this topic. He lost the debate. Philosophy vs Theology? I would go to Theology. Dr. James White presented much more Biblical exegesis. And quoted a lot of Bible Verses.
William Lane Craig’s face while White speaks is the same face I made during this entire debate 😂😂😂😂
Did anyone hear James say how God is not the author of evil on Calvinism? He was asked repeatedly. Did he ever give an answer? I'm asking genuinely.
He did answer but was summarily ignored; I think he knew he would be ignored and that there were better things for him to do than to spend all of his time defending what had already been addressed. He explained that the Reformed position recognizes God's use of secondary causes in the existence of evil. He further explained that the Molinist position has to deal with the same problem, with the added caveat that there's some foreign power that's not derived from God's nature that's powerful enough and authoritative enough to limit Him. He also said several times that scripture teaches that God restrains people's wickedness. But the greater part of his focus was on his point that it's not enough for an explanation for the existence of evil to be consistent with scripture, but that it must actually be drawn from scripture, i e. God's explanation must be our explanation as opposed to our explanation simply fitting into His.
@@benjamincase1427
_He did answer but was summarily ignored; I think he knew he would be ignored and that there were better things for him to do than to spend all of his time defending what had already been addressed._
I’m sorry I missed it. I was listening for it each time, and I genuinely did not hear an answer.
_He explained that the Reformed position recognizes God's use of secondary causes in the existence of evil. He further explained that the Molinist position has to deal with the same problem, with the added caveat that there's some foreign power that's not derived from God's nature that's powerful enough and authoritative enough to limit Him. He also said several times that scripture teaches that God restrains people's wickedness. But the greater part of his focus was on his point that it's not enough for an explanation for the existence of evil to be consistent with scripture, but that it must actually be drawn from scripture, i e. God's explanation must be our explanation as opposed to our explanation simply fitting into His._
I mean this with the utmost respect, but I don’t see an answer in what you said either. You mentioned “secondary causes” (which White also mentioned) and then moved on to other matters (e.g. that Molinism has the same problem + another issue, that God restrains people’s wickedness, etc.). That's what White seemed to do too....
Is pointing to the mere existence of secondary causes a complete answer in your opinion? Is the full answer to the problem of God freely willing and acting to produce evil that He doesn’t produce it directly, but just causes us to will it and to act on our willing of it?
@@Mentat1231 I'm sorry, you're right. I should probably have explained secondary causes. The Reformed position holds that while evil itself is indeed evil, God ordained (passively) that it should exist to display the fullness of His glory upon vessels prepared beforehand for glory (i.e. the elect). So, while God is not the author of evil, he ordained that evil exist so he can display his attributes which would otherwise not have been displayed, such as his justice, wrath, righteousness, grace, and mercy, and that those whom He saves may praise Him and enjoy Him forever in light of this revelation. But God cannot commit evil. John says that there is no darkness in Him whatsoever. So God ordained that Adam introduce sin into the world. Adam was the secondary cause that God used to introduce evil into the world without He Himself authoring it. That's what is meant by secondary cause.
@@benjamincase1427
So, if God causes Adam to desire sin and carry it out, God is not the author of evil? I don't understand that. If I had the power to make a person want things, and I freely made them want an evil thing, am I not the source of the evil act that follows?
I am not a Molinist, by the way. But, it seems to me that Molinism has a clear way out of this problem, while the Calvinist does not seem to. That's why I was hoping White would drill down to the nitty-gritty on how exactly the Calvinist view deals with this.
@@benjamincase1427 How does one passively ordain exactly. One cannot passively perform any transitive verb. One can only passively undergo or experience or suffer the actions of another.
I don't think this is about "who wins" (as one person commented) but, rather, about giving an explanation of two opposing systems of thought on the subject of man's will in relation to God's sovereignty and how that plays out within the issue of moral evil. This they both did very well. I appreciate both men and count them as brothers in Christ.
Except that at least one of these systems of thought is incorrect bibical teaching and thus heretical.
I’m with you. Although I expected to see white be a little more biblical based and crag more philosophical based. Just off my experience with the two. And yet they both did a pretty good job. I will say James did build a case for the biblical that crag almost left unchecked until the very end. It was pretty informative.
I got excited thinking this was the actual episode. Cannot wait! I praise God that he chose to actualize a world in which this happened!
Come on, you were decreed before the foundation of the world to post this comment... hold on does that mean that mine too? :S
w0w hahahahha
Determined… 🤪
You should do a recap on your channel once this airs
Eric! my fav. apologist. How will these guys survive heaven unless they can sit on fluffy clouds and argue about free will or evolution? You're too humble for this field.
Very interesting discussion. It's great that they're kind and respectful to each other.
I love the dialogue and arguments. I did find the idea that, before Molina gave a nuanced description of the belief, it wouldn't be possible for anyone to have the belief. My mom who is not an intellectual and has never even heard of Molinism expressed the idea of Molinism to me as a child. It is only the high intellectual who needs express definitions to have real understanding.
When I was a kid I had the understanding that God decreed things, yet also man freely chose things. I just didn’t know what was called Molinism.
It isn’t the intellectually elite that this is reserved for. It just helps to have language to succinctly explain those principles that we all have access to.
@@logosgaming1987 The Easter Bunny, Santa, and Modalism were real to me as a child too.
Your use of an ad hominem to make a point, that makes no sense if you actually think, shows your lack of understanding of these topics. Go study instead of arguing online.
@@RandomBLACKman I love it. 1 Corinthians 13:11
[11]When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
@@jacobforaker6222 Not an argument, just a simple anecdotal musing on the idea that someone could not understand a concept if that concept does not have a name or has not yet been expressed succinctly and fully by another.
My comment has nothing to do with Molinism or Calvinism. As for the "attacking of the person" I have great respect for both of these men I have learned so much from them. I was speaking to a personality, that I myself have, and the pitfalls that are more easily found whith that personality. The more I have learned the more and more I am humbled and I offer a sincere apology for the perceived attack and failure at language.
When God says in the OT " They restisted my Spirit" , it goes against determinism, cause it states that humans can resist the will of God.
When Paul said that "Satan hindered me", and Scripture said that Jesus could not do "many miracles there because of unbelif"
, then it clearly implies that humans can resist the will of God, and that Satan can hinder the will of God to be done.
Don’t try and throw scriptures at the reformed camp. They always have an answer for why the text doesn’t mean what it teaches but instead means what reformed theology teaches.
@@andrewscotteames4718 Hey Andrew I can see that you have dealt with calvinist before. You are so right
So true
@@andrewscotteames4718 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me when as yet there were none of them. Psalm 139 : 16.
The LORD has made all things for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of evil. Proverbs 16 : 4
Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. Acts13 : 48
"No man can come to Me, except the Father Who sent Me draws him: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6 : 44
" You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you, that you should go and bring forth fruit..." John 15 : 16
@@garybridgham31 you quote bible verses and thats cool, but how do you harmonize those verses with all the verses where people go against gods will?
Me before watching this video, thinking I know things: “Maybe I should go back to seminary and get a degree in Apologetics or Philosophy”
Me after watching this video: “Maybe I should get a gaming PC instead…..”
Bro, I’m with you on that. 🤣
Watching vid today and was already planning on buying new controller but couldn't understand fully what side I believe holds much water
😂😂😂😂Sooo trueeee
No don’t do that, this philosophical noodling about a topic that is obvious in scripture isn’t smart they rarely quote scripture the real authority or take their explanations from scripture. God gives us all we need to understand why He allows suffering and evil in his inspired word!!
@@Cafez27 amen
WLC made the stronger logical, philosophical argument for a position that "fits with" Scripture. JW took the position that flows "directly from" Scripture. That's the key difference. WRT to the problem of evil, WLC pointed out that divine determinism logically implies that God is the author of evil. But again, that assertion is made from philosophical reasoning. Calvinism says, Scripture clearly teaches that God is not the author of evil. How to logically reconcile that with God's sovereign decree over all things, we have to work that out.
Just wanted to point this out, in light of all the comments I see here. I agree that WLC's argument made more logical sense. I agree that JW didn't address the problem of evil as adequately as many would have liked. But remember, "which position makes more logical sense" cannot be the only basis by which Christians rank different theological positions.
The thing with Molinism is that most all of it comes directly from Scripture. The Sovereignty of God and free choices of man, the only difference is it is simply a philosophical method of making sense of the relationship between those two (as is Calvinism). So it affirms much of what Calvinism affirms, it just tries to make sense of teo seemingly opposing concepts by way of philosophical work.
No but if your position is internally illogical, that’s a huge red flag. God is author of logic.
This could all be right, but the topic of the debate isn’t “Which theory should a Christian belief”. Rather the topic was “Which theory better deals with the problem of evil”. So all Craig was doing was saying “Look, my view is consistent with Scripture, and it better deals with this problem of evil”
But Scripture does not teach Calvinism either, friend! Believe on The Lord Jesus Christ and be saved!
We can agree that Calvanism is illogical. It is like mormanism for Christians. Lol
It strikes me how much in common James White has with Young-Earth creationists: "My interpretation is the only right interpretation, so your biblical evidence is moot". They cannot be persuaded because they are supremely confident, without a shred of doubt, that they have the right interpretation and there is no possibility in their mind that things could be otherwise.
Well he is a YEC so that makes sense.
@@chipan9191 The Bible read plainly is a YE book and a flat earth book as well
@@eg4848 that's an interpretation without any nuance. You may as well believe the Bible says Jesus is a door made of vines...
@@chipan9191 Um, excuse me, he is a door made of vines that is a good shepherd. Duh 🙄
😂😂😂😂
Bingo. I love Dr. White, but I fully agree with your observation.
Thank God for determining Justin to invite these two for the debate! LOL.
I really enjoy Bill's posture, his calm and honesty.
Beyond James White compromise with Calvinism, I believe - since he is deeply anti-catholic - that he can't admit that there is a non-reformed theological giant as Molina or any other. And, at least for me, this moves the balance in favor of Bill's intellectual honesty.
In Bill I see free inquiry and in James White I see just one more person trying to justificate a point of view at any cost.
I feel the same. It needs to be said, reformers were human and their words are not Scripture. They got it wrong some of the time, and the Church was still the Church before they showed up on the picture. I try not to engage in tribalistic thinking and instead try to take the good and leave the bad. Catholic theology is whacky when it comes to Mary and justification, but has a lot of other things they got right.
Thanks Dr White and Dr Craig for the fascinating discussion. Couldn't wait to see such great scholars discuss such an amazing topic.
Fantastic debate!
Love them both.
Great knowledge here
I love gracious disagreements among brothers. The winsomeness I've witnessed in these two in other arenas really has me hopeful and excited for how they might build each other up in this discussion instead of producing division.
Perhaps we watched different debates. White was anything except gracious. He mocked Craig, laughing and rolling his eyes at every turn.
Props to the moderator for keeping the discussion on topic and the points clear.
This is UNBELIEVABLE! Thank you, brothers, for this awesome and thought provoking conversation. Very much appreciated.
Also my heart goes out to those who have suffered great tragedy because of the sinful freewill of man. It is extremely difficult for them to begin a relationship with a loving God if they hear that God purposely ordained for tragedy to happen to them randomly by the hand of God. The truths of Scripture also line up with common sense.
The idea of free will is idolatry. God makes people a certain way for his own reasons.
Isaiah 45:7
"I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things".
Job 1:6-12: The devil only does what God permits
Lamentations 3:37-38: Both good things and calamities come from the mouth of the Most High
Zephaniah 1:12: God will punish those who say in their heart, "The LORD will not do good, nor will he do evil"
Proverbs 16:4: "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble"
James White: “Here’s Genesis 50. Isaiah 40-48. Ephesians 1:11...”
William Lane Craig: “Here’s Charles Dickens!!”
TKO to the Calvinist
I see your Dickens and raise you Tolkien...ha ha I win.
😂😂😂
from my perspective it comes off as more
James White: *asks a philosophical question*
WLC: *answers philosophically*
Calvinists: "BUT HE'S NOT QUOTING SCRIPTURE!!!!"
This is a silly comparison. WLC used the Dickens quote to illustrate a philosophical concept. He wasn't trying to test it on scripture at that point.
@@anthonywhitney634 That's the problem with WLC , he's a philosopher not a theologian. That's why he denys the historicity of Genesis 1-3. He alogirizes it instead of reading the actual historical context. That's why he believes in millions of years. That's a HUGE problem.
These are both men I respect.
That said, I think Bill makes the more convincing argument. James seems unwilling to "listen to learn" ... but instead, seems to be "listening to respond".
I enjoyed the discussion and feel I learned some small details I had never thought of before. I do feel like James found it best to simply attack and never defend the consistent claim WLC was making about Calvinism making God the author of evil. He simply ignored the claim and instead attempted to try and say molinism is trying to limit God, which I feel he failed to do. Indeed James often used as hominem attacks against Molina being a Jesuit as justices alone for rejecting any truth that molinism might impart. Additionally, he made claims like “reformed theology is the grounds of what makes giants of theological thinkers” using a presupposition that reformed theology is correct to justify the brilliance of the reformed theology expressed by many thinkers.
Nailed it.
It’s so sad that I know James White’s argumentation to the degree that I know you’re being completely honest and nailing how the debate went without having watched it yet myself.
James made some good points, but I agree that his ultimate rhetorical failure in this debate was assuming that Craig’s intentions were to avoid honest Biblical exegesis. Not to mention, He never offered an answer to how God is not the author of evil, He just stated the fact. I am sure he can defend his view, I just don’t think he did so in this debate. Either way, what an edifying discussion.
Agree. Honestly it may have been the limitations of the format. It seems like he had a specific objective to expose Molinism by proving it does not come from Scripture and is not consistent with Scripture. In doing so, he did not sufficiently refute WLC’s assertions about Calvinism. Just a thorough explanation of positive-negative predestination would have fully grounded his position.
“What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-“ Romans 9:22-23
James believes in Sola Scriptura and for him to explain why God ordains all that happens (including evil) outside of scripture would be to go against sola scriptura & venture into philosophy like WLC does.
I’m not a brilliant biblical scholar like these men are (obviously 🤣) but I’m more than satisfied with what scripture has clearly revealed: God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. Humans are responsible for their actions. There is no injustice on God’s part. If we could explain how this all works then God isn’t really God. We’re finite, he’s infinite. These debates are enjoyable but we’re kidding ourselves if we think we’ll figure this all out this side of glory.
Isaiah 45:7 What God says of Himself is sufficient. We're the ones uncomfortable.
Loved the conversation but I’m disappointed White never directly answered how he resolves God being the cause of evil. He kept gesturing at “secondary causes” but never really explained.
It's very simple bruh
"No Calvinist can"
There you have your answer
The Reformed Confessions explain what is meant by secondary causes, giving Scriptural proof texts for the doctrine.
In a nutshell, God is the primary cause for literally everything (which the Scriptures affirm), yet creation/creatures also cause things secondarily (such as my wayward thumbs being the cause of this comment). Any evil done is always biblically blamed on the creature.
Judges 14 is one of my favorite examples of this.
Dr.White didn’t go there because he’s done it quite often elsewhere And there’s literally thousands of pages elsewhere. The point was to press on issues that aren’t typically discussed with such clarity. One thing that I have grown to appreciate about Dr. White is his ability to identify and focus on the main point of any given issue during a debate
@@aaroncrim1929 I can appreciate that, and I have read the Calvinist perspective on secondary causes elsewhere, but I feel like that is where the true disagreement lies, so would’ve love to have seen the debate go there. I agree with Craig that White never really squarely confronts the objection that his view makes God the author of evil.
@@davidhewitt4568 _"Any evil done is always biblically blamed on the creature."_
And Satan? The principalities and powers? I see Satan and his demons as mediating agents. People have sinful natures, but Satan uses that to carry out his will. Is it correct to say that God permits Satan to "rule over" any evil secondary causes thereby removing God from the direct cause of sin?
Praise God that he decreed this episode to happen!
Through the circumstances in which all three of these men freely chose to do so!
@@logosgaming1987 But yet were no surprise to Him, for the Lord has predistened all things.
@@user-jk2po3cz7d yep! Molinism!
@@logosgaming1987 Nope... I dont think my explanation leaves any room for middle knowledge, nor is it intended.
@@logosgaming1987 it’s Calvinism.
We hold that God ordained the end as well as the means to that end. So human decisions and actions are never discounted.
“Prior to Molina‘s attempt to undo the preaching of the reformation”
Prior to giving an answer, James wraps his entire argument in a classic logical fallacy. 🤷♂️
Agreed! JW has contradicted himself so many times in this show! His view is God moves creatures to take evil actions and then restrains them - Joseph's example!!!
Who should you follow, someone who is looking through scripture and sees what they teach or someone who sets out to attack a position and focuses only on disproving one side?
I love the hypocrisy. Free pass to Craig for claiming Molina was of of the greatest theologians of all time, but shame on White for countering that claim. Both are examples of the genetic fallacy.
@@oracleoftroy Craig doesn’t use it as a genetic fallacy. The praise of Molina arises out of his enthusiasm for the explanatory power and scope of the theory. I have found that in my own search as well. The first time I came I wrapped my brain around just exactly how brilliant it was, I was just awed. It lays a foundation for God’s foreknowledge, it lends itself to supporting how God answers prayer, etc…
@@Ironica82 neither would speak to the force of the argument. You are guilty of the same genetic fallacy with your own comment. If Molina’s argument is valid it is so independently of what motivates him.
I remember hearing a story of how a little girl was playing randomly on a piano. But then a man who was an expert on music theory heard the notes that she played, and BASED on her free choice to play the piano randomly, the man used his expertise to play notes that complimented the otherwise random playing of the girl thus creating a coherent musical composition. God in is omniscience is a master musician and can make coherence or sense out of our choice to play music poorly or music well, but BOTH are free choices on our side. We can either strive to become MORE like the pianist in our knowledge of music theory or we can play however we like. But in the end, God works ALL things for His good, and proves that He is, in fact, a master musician that can turn even the most ugly notes into comprehensive music. This to me is a MUCH more awe inspiring story than the man picking up the girls hands and making her play well or making her play poorly and praising her for "playing well" and punishing her for "playing poorly", and THIS is the fundamental difference between Molinism and Calvinism.
I have listened to this video probably three or four times and I am struck by many things but especially this... Craig offered no less than six chances for White to simply deny that Calvinism teaches unilateral divine determinism and at no time did White ever deny it. He could have on six occasions said no Bill, God doesn’t move the creatures will to sin… but he won’t just say it.
Why won’t White say something clearly that gives some hope that he doesn’t actually believe that God moves the will of creatures to do evil?
God said He hardened pharaohs heart. He didn’t say it like that but mean He let it get hard. God is capable of saying what He means. For this cause have I raised you up that I might show My power in you. God is said to make the wicked for the day of His vengeance. Those scriptures aren’t vague. And in the mouth of two or more witnesses. How much more proof do you need?
@@mountainman78629 Pharaoh hardened his own heart first. Just like Jesus speaking in parables. They could have seen the miracles, clung to Jesus, begged Him to explain the parables to them, followed Him, but they didn't. They chose their sin. "But since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life" "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent." It is entirely clear. God didn't COMMAND Adam NOT to eat the fruit and then WILL HIM TO EAT IT. In that case, it would have been good for Adam to disobey God's command. Absolute nonsense!
@@MatthewHaislip But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not listen to them, just as the Lord had spoken to Moses.
Exodus 9:12 Matthew, I’m sure you mean we’ll but that statement is pretty cut and dried. It’s not vague in other words. Don’t misread something like that because it doesn’t fit into your interpretation today because you’re no different than Mormons or jehovah witnesses. Here’s something I was thinking about recently. The new birth, what is it? Would you agree the Bible mentions babes in Christ? We have to grow in regarding our understanding of scripture, correct? No one has a perfect understanding of it, especially a babe in Christ. We all start out on the milk of the word. As much as we would like to read thru the Bible once and understand it perfectly I think you have to admit it’s not going to happen like that. I’ve always compared the Bible to dumping a puzzle out on a table and having to put it together to have a clear picture. Most people start with the edge. Take the simple things of scripture first and set them aside. If there actually is anything simple with the word of God. I hope you’re not so set in your Armenian understanding that you misinterpret something as clear as God hardening pharaohs heart. Read about God sending Jeremiah to the potters house and see if you can understand that. Who makes who? Ephesians 1:5, God shows us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before him in love,he predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, by which he made us accepted in the beloved. Don’t try to take credit for yourself what is due to God and God alone.
@@MatthewHaislip It does clearly say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Later verses say that the Lord hardened his heart. What's important is that the Lord is letting things work out naturally when Pharaoh does what He wants, and interferes when Pharaoh is going to do something that the Lord doesn't want. This demonstrates that Pharaoh has a will that's separate from God's will, thus free will.
@@fireandworms God doesn’t roll the dice to see how they land to determine His next move. God controls the dice. Take the lot for instance. It’s every decision is from the Lord. What if when they cast lots for Jonah it came up to someone else? What if they threw Jonah overboard there was no fish? God is either in control of everything or He’s in control of nothing and I think we know He’s in control of at least some things and that means He’s in control of everything
It’s amazing when Calvinist want all things in Ephesians 1 to mean all they turn right around and say God does not mean he wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth in 1 Timothy 2!
James they didn’t have Calvinism either!
Well, that would work the other way around too. All sides have to deal with differences in use of words and context. However, reformed theologians usually handle the biblical text more consistently in its context because they actually practice exegesis.
@@Luiz__Silva I appreciate your humble use of the word "usually" but I've found too many Calvinistic interpretations that rely on eisegesis to agree that they practice exegesis. Lonny's mention of 1 Timothy 2 is just one example.
You're right, Lonny. And 1 Timothy 2 is just one example where Calvinists come up with "creative" responses to passages that don't support the Calvinist narrative.
@@pattitilton8442 Since all men are not goinbg to be saved and to hold to Ephesians 1, then we must keep with context. All persons that God elects shall be saved.
@@barryclevenger7456 If that’s true then I wonder why Paul, who was of the chosen nation of Israel and a chosen apostle, wrote to Timothy, “If we deny Him, He will also deny us” (2 Timothy 2:12). And why would he mourn over and pray for the salvation of his fellow Israelites in Romans 9:1ff, 10:1ff, them go on to write about people being “broken off” for unbelief (Rom. 11:19-22)? Could it be that well-meaning people have applied passages to themselves that the context does not allow?
Surprised by some of the arguments that James White used - they sounded a bit like the guy who comes up and says “show me where the word “Trinity” is in the Bible.” And I was glad when the moderator pushed back on the notion that Molinism came about hundreds of years later, whereas Calvinism didn’t? James then goes on to say this is reformed theology. It’s almost like James has been reading with certain lenses and now those lenses are such a part of the page, that his argument summed up goes “why don’t you see it like a Calvinist?” I was expecting better arguments from James White.
Indeed indeed! If Calvinism is derived so self evidently from the text, why did no one, as is often admitted by reformed scholars, get the message until Augustine?
As a someone who affirms reformed theology, I would just point out that stating something was unknown to the church until Augustine presupposes the normative interpretation of Holy Writ was something other than God is entirely sovereign, which is not supported by the surviving writings of the earliest church fathers including Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch. I'd personally rather exegete the text, but we have to tread carefully in history lest we be guilty of anachronism. We can't pretend everyone always thought like we do now. Blessings!
You are 100% correct of your analysis of Dr. White's argument in this debate. I was observing the same thing too when he read from Ephesians like it proved his position.
@@macksonamission1784 many did. Like, the apostle Paul before Augustine. And Irenaus. And Justin…
I was just surprised that James White was saying rather low accusations towards WLC because generally someone so well versed in debate would steel man his opponent. For example, he was saying basic seminary 101 stuff about how his interpretation came from the text whereas WLC was reading his into the text. In my opinion WLC is one of the most brilliant Christian thinkers of our time. It would be like when the Calvinist says “well I have a high view of God”, to me you aren’t proving anything. I was just surprised that James would go that route..
This was an excellent debate by two professing Christians. I wish this could reflect all debates
Craig is correct when he says that "Reformed theology is permeated by models and theories of God that are not based on scripture, though they are consistent with scripture". The fact that James White does not agree with that reveals his hermeneutical blindness and fundamentalism. White wants to see Calvinism as being obviously the only valid interpretation of scripture but it clearly is not.
I think JW's point is that the model for Calvinism itself is derived from Scripture by "resistless logic" (check out Martin Luther's "Bondage of the Will").
The model for Molinism is not derived from Scripture. Although WLC claims it to be compatible with Scripture, I see 2 main problems:
- The Bible never describes God as incapable of getting what He wants. Multiple passages explain God's sovereignty as final (Prov 21:1; Daniel 4; Isaiah 40 - 46; etc)
- Molinism simply accepts that although God had an infinite number of worlds to choose from, the world He really wanted (one where everyone gets saved) was unavailable to Him ...and we need not concern ourselves with how or why that's the case. But anyone thinking this through would realize that this can't be the case: What is to prevent God from not creating those hell-bound lives? And if He had to create them (for some strange reason), what is to prevent Him from seeing to it that the majority of them die in infancy and go to heaven? Win-win, right?
Seems to me that Molinism would need to engage with these questions instead of dismissing them as some sort of odd and inexplicable fixed condition of all possible worlds.
@@timffoster That is what James White claims but I am very far from being convinced. One can always selectively chose a number of verses to support ones view. If Calvinism is true then God really is the author of evil; and at that point Christianity becomes untenable as far as I am concerned. Moreover, Calvinism was unknown until the Reformation: none of the Church Fathers argued that God is Sovereign in the way that Calvin imagined. Actualistic ontology: what God does reveals who God is. The cross thus reveals that God’s power is love, as Karl Barth has shown. Calvin’s notion of God’s power is that of an omnipotent 16th century potentate!
@@bayreuth79 I can appreciate the struggle with trying to figure out who/what authored evil.
Job said "the Lord taketh away". When I Read all of Job 1, that phrase comes remarkably close to saying God is the author/planner of evil (yet without accusing God of wrongdoing or finding fault with God (v21). So I'm going to side with Job on this one. He predated Calvin by 3500 years.
Molinosm, on the other hand, posits that an unknown inexplicable set of conditions presented God with infinite worlds, and that God actualized this one we live in. So God knowingly and willingly actualizing a world with evil, yet is not the author of evil.
Molinism doesn't explain away the problem. Both views still have God in the kitchen, cooking up a world that has evil, yet not being the author of evil.
The problem as I see it is that Molinism limits God's options by some inexplicable unchangeable mystery that God cannot override, even though He wants to.
But that concept is *nowhere* taught in Scripture. Indeed, that concept defangs the many passages that explicitly state that God "sent", "commanded", "planned", "predestined " men to do evil deeds.
Molinism can't go where the Bible goes.
Thanks..
@@timffoster The options aren't limited to Calvinism or Molinism. In my view both are deeply problematic. The Eastern Orthodox, the Syrian Orthodox, the Copts, etc., have never accepted either position! The Roman Catholic Church has a few possible positions. You cannot read a single book of the Bible and then extract from that book doctrine that is universally binding. Job is (1) poetry and (2) if taken literally in all its details would imply that God gave the accuser power to torment Job even though he was supposed to be "righteous". I agree with Barth- and many others- that God reveals himself in the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Christ is _the_ Word of God. What do we see on the cross? That God is self-sacrificial love and that God's power is manifested in love, which in this world appears as weakness. The power of God is the love of God. Calvin, and others, assume that God's power is about _dominance_ but its not: its only and exclusively the power of love itself. Christianity becomes absurd if we assume that God eternally predestines some to eternal torment and others to bliss. That is the magnification of _earthly_ understandings of power, not God's power. Calvinists worship an omnipotent Satan. As C S Lewis says, God is so good than even if he were deprived of all his power we would still worship him because of that supreme goodness, mercy and love.
@@timffoster 1. I’m not aware that Molinism argues that, ultimately, God does not get what He wants. In fact, it seems to argue that He does because he has knowledge of what His free will creatures would do.
2. How could a world exist where all people would be saved if all those people had actual free will? It is a logical absurdity.
I am long time consumer of both brother's content, but I have to say with my completely and totally unbiased opinion Dr. William Lane Crag made a more convincing argument for molinism.
“completely and totally unbiased”
Your biases are a blind spot to your thinking. Everyone has biases and presuppositions.
You’re so unbiased that you may be refusing to let the Bible influence your opinion.
@Armchair Christianity christians like you are the reason I’m warming up to Christianity. Keep doing what you do man God bless
@@javariusjavarlamariuslamar3759 Jesus loves you. Seek and you will find.
@@nymbusDeveloper86 the doctrines of calvinism (which I strongly reject and abhor) sure make it hard but I’m trying
It bothers me when a theologian says “the scriptures are clear on…”. when they discuss controversial doctrines.
I like Dr. White, but the Bible is not clear on the topic of Calvinism. If it were, then Arminians and Molinists doctrine wouldn’t exist.
Interisting thought you have there! Is it because everything is already determined?
@@bryanestranero127 Interesting thought touché. Sure, maybe it was “determined” that there would be controversial doctrines. Maybe it was “determined” that some Calvinists would be converted to non-Calvinist theology. Ad infinitum…
@@estebanmiguel6019 thanks! But do think, with that argument, Calvinism isn’t Biblical or can’t be true?
@@bryanestranero127 Maybe Calvinism is true, maybe it isn’t. Seems to be fairly good arguments for both…as evidenced by this, and the thousands of similar debates on the issue for the last 2 millennia.
In light of that, maybe a better focus is: have we witnessed to, discipled and poured our life into someone this week, to genuinely help someone and glorify God?
@@estebanmiguel6019 i think you’re argument against Calvinism applies for Molinism, that’s just my opinion. It makes sense for what WLC referred to as “permissive will”.
Thanks for the input.
What a conversation! Really enjoyed this.
I love WIlliam Lane Craig, such a beautiful decent person.
I havent watched this yet, but clearly this guy destroyed the other guy in the debate.
I agree.
Yes indeed haha
Which guy?😁
Wrong. The other guy won easily.
@@vanessac0382 *that* guy!!!
Im glad William and James finally got to communicate
I get a bit lost when Dr. White is speaking. I appreciate Dr Craig’s clear and biblical explanations. To me, God didn’t ordain truth to be confusing. I appreciate this conversation. Thank you!
Wow, a debate that I've been waiting for for so long and it comes on my birthday! I look forward to seeing the points made by both White and Craig and I wonder if this may lead to more discussions between these two or inspire others to participate in such debates!
Happy Birthday
Happy birthday 🎂
Either way, you didn't have a choice.
🤣🤣🤣😎😎😎
@@alexwarstler9000 But maybe I did 😂😉😎
@@samstockfisch1286 Well played. I have been bested in combat. 🤺🤺🤺
let me say this as a fellow brother in Christ watching this debate. I've been a big fan of both Dr Craig and Dr White for as long as I can remember. they've been a huge help (God helping through them, of course) through my times of doubt and faithlessness, and have both ushered me to a realm of Christianity that I didn't even think existed, and it is through discussions like these do I feel the reality of Augustine's motto: *Fides quaerens intellectum* (meaning, faith seeking understanding), so thanks Justin! However, I do sense a huge dose of unnecessary hostility coming from White to Craig, and I don't mean to judge things externally, but seeing from Dr White's facial expressions and intonations, I can't help but assume so. On the contrary, I can see Dr Craig humbly and carefully answering the objections towards Molinism. I can't say that I'm convinced with either of their arguments *yet*, but I'm getting there.
Thank you for this edifying discussion! Blessings to Dr Craig, Dr White, Justin and his team for hosting this debate.
Tone/expressions/etc don’t have any bearing on the value of their arguments or dialectic. Also, focusing on “niceness” is folly and has been a hindrance to Christians in the culture wars.
White comes across that way often, even to callers on his own show at times.
Craig was definitely the more professional of the two.
@@thirstypilgrim97 Yet the Bible tells us that we will recognize true teachers by their fruit. I’m not saying that white is not a fruitful Christian, please don’t misunderstand me, but it is extremely important to discernment of fellow believers as to the expression of the fruit of the spirit from teachers.
I’ve seen a similar demeanor/attitude in a lot of calvinists in my life and in media. I don’t often see gentleness or compassion. It doesn’t mean they have none, it just (often) doesn’t come across during conversation in what they say or how they say it.
I think a lot of reformed believers dislike the idea of only being “nice” so they often go the complete opposite direction and come across as hostile. There’s a time and place for firmness but I think there might be some arrogance and a lack of understanding.
I'm not a Molinist, but Craig wiped the floor with White here. Interesting though that neither of them brought up the idea of God choosing to limit Himself by His own will. Craig seems to assert that these counterfactuals just "are" by nature of the created order, and White seems to think that God must necessarily have all power at all times because it's part of His nature. The idea that God could choose to limit Himself (as He did in the incarnation) seems to be a missing piece of this puzzle.
Thanks so much for posting this, I loved watching and thinking with these giants! :)
Exactly. And God choosing to limit Himself as He has done in many ways in many times to allow free will among mankind fits way better with scriptures like the Joseph story.
@@Typoreal Hey! It's been about a year since I watched this debate, so there could be something in there that would change my reply. So take the following with a grain of salt lol.
But yeah I'd say that your comment appears to be conflating (A) God taking action against someone, and (B) God unilaterally changing someone's will. In my understanding (not accepting the presuppositions White brings to the text), God striking Saul/Paul blind is not Him unilaterally changing Saul's will as such (B), but taking an action against Saul (A), to which Saul could then choose his response.
In Acts 9:7 we see Jesus giving Saul further instruction. To assume that Saul could not have refused or ignored that instruction is to import theological assumptions into the text. This seems to be White's MO in debate.
So, (again with a grain of salt because I haven't rewatched the conversation haha) I'd say that what we see in Paul's conversion is God reaching out with *His* will, to which Saul/Paul responds with *his* own will, in a synergistic working out of *God's* will.
Thanks for your comment, it got me thinking this afternoon! :)
Dr Craig is a delight to listen to. He’s vey sound in scripture. James White didn’t address the problem of whether God unilaterally causes evil. He dodged it.
I have been waiting for this discussion for the longest. This will be historic! 🙌 🙏 Although, we need a longer discussion between these two on this topic.
Craig’s point regarding the Calvinistic path that ultimately forces God willing and determining evil is an excellent point that James White never satisfactorily answers.
God does will and determine evil. Read Isaiah 10 where God takes responsibility for, and flat out said he caused the Assyrians to wipe out Israel and yet punishes them for their sin in that selfsame act.
@@christopherneedham9584 no, God does not force the Assyrians to do anything.
the Assyrians freely chose to do the evil things they did, and then God punished for it.
when you say that God wills and determines evil you are asserting that God is evil.
this is both completely contrary to what scripture teaches,
and it is logically impossible.
why do you believe something that is both logically incoherent and contrary to scripture?
Because White cannot answer it. Calvinism is an evil heresy.
@@jackplumbridge2704 did you read Isaiah 10. Because the bible says that God used the Assyrians as his rod of judgement. It doesn't say that the Assyrians willy nilly did whatever they wanted. Although, they did that too. The Assyrians were God's punishment to the Israelites, and the Assyrians were arrogant and prideful and as a result, sinful in their execution. These are both true, except what God did as divine judgment was not evil, but it caused people to do evil things.
In the same way, when God used Israel as a rod of judgement against other nations, that was not God doing evil, but justice. And the attitude of Israel being in submission to him, means that sin was not committed.
I thought Dr. White’s response in pointing to not God creating evil but actually restraining the evil that was already there was sufficient. It seems a regularly constructed strawman used against reformed theology: to accuse advocates
White: "You totally use Philosophy to inform your interpretation of Scripture, and I don't."
Craig: "Yeah, that's actually not possible."
Probably the best summary of the debate I've read.
Absolutely. How does James even know what the Scripture "says"? He uses his eyes and his ears. He must believe before anything else in simple axioms like self-existence, logical laws and the approximate reliability of sensory experience.
“I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God besides me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me; that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”
Isaiah 45:5-7
This is actually a groundbreaking debate, praise God!
I want to thank everyone involved for making this happen. I know it is something that a lot of people have looked forward to for a long time and it was really great to see even if only for a short period of time. I hope that the three of you would be willing to get together again to continue the discussion. Both James White and William Lane Craig are highly respected apologist for the faith therefore I believe a lot of issues such as this one could be discussed in a matter that brings to light the possible problems of one or the others theology.
If I were to sum it up I would say this... William Lane Craig is so calm and gracious in his discussions that it's so very easy to be drawn to his arguments just for his mere demeanor. I think he's very respectful and at no point did I see a hint of snarkiness or cynical attitude. On the other hand Dr White, who I don't think was rude in any way just more irked by the claims that he was hearing from Dr Craig. Which I don't mind, I actually tend to be more that way but it was interesting to see on the camera how it played out and it very much has made me think about how I need to handle myself going forward. The reason I say this is because James White clearly won this debate. He was arguing on the grounds of scripture and what it teaches whereas Dr Craig was appealing to philosophy much more frequently. It really could be summed up in the opening statements where Dr White uses Ephesians chapter 1 to state his position whereas Dr Craig went to the Christmas Carol and use that as a picture to explain molinism. Both camps agree that God is not responsible for evil. The problem that molinism presents is that God is almost handicapped by the creature. God wants to save as many people as he possibly can but he can only save the people who will it and therefore God must create a universe in which the most amount of people will at any point be willed themselves to be saved. I believe scripture teaches clearly in plainly that God chooses who he will save and he did so before the foundation of the world but that he did that by his own will and good pleasure not the will or pleasure of the creation. Ultimately molinism has the same problem that it is claiming Calvinism has. It claims that God is the author of evil because he has decreed it but by God seeing a infinite number of universes and ultimately putting into reality this current universe he is knowingly placing the people and events into actuality where they themselves will commit the evil acts that he knows they will therefore it is determined as well. And for the person that says that God does not know then that presents a whole other host of problems that are unscriptural.
I agree with your analysis. Well said.
I think it's like saying if God knows evil will occur, it's better not to create a world at all or not to give the creatures free will. It seems to me that it's one thing to weigh in create vs. not create, and then find the greater good in creation plus free will despite side effect of evil that will result. Whereas another thing altogether to ordain evil.
Moreover, God can compensate ultimately any sufferer of evil per unfortunate circumstances.
It's like: it's better to have schools open even as you know some covid infections will result. But you don't ordain \ will the infections. And if you're a good doctor, you cure the infected.
Helpful. Thank you!!
I would have say that I disagree with you slightly. I do not think it was clear who won.
I think there was some things on Dr. Whites part that were a little frustrating to watch. It seemed like a lot of the time, WLC and Dr. White were just shooting past each other and not on the same page.
First, Dr. White was unwilling to separate the divine revelation of the bible with Calvinism whereas Dr. Craig was willing to separate Molinism from divine revelation. Dr. Craig recognizes that Molinism is not explicitly taught in the bible but also asserts that neither is Calvinism among many other things. Both are models that attempt to makes sense of scripture but Dr. White seems to think his preferred model of Calvinism is the same thing as scripture which is why he has such a strong reaction to Craig admitting that Molinism is not taught explicitly in the bible. I would agree with Dr. Craig that Calvinism, Arminianism and Molinism are all attempts to understand scripture but are not the same thing as scripture itself. John Calvin may have gotten his interpretation of the bible wrong because he is fallible like the rest of us. In any case, the result is that White and Craig were not on the same page and they went around each other in circles on this issue.
Second, another place they went around in circles was the grounding of subjunctive conditionals of creaturely freedom. Dr. Craig basically says that middle knowledge is knowledge of a statement such as "Creature X would do behaviour Y if the circumstances were Z." White's response, popularly known as the grounding objection, says that there are no grounds for God to know the truth of these statements or in it's more aggressive form: "Where are these truths coming from that limit God from acting upon his good will?" The point Dr. Craig attempted to point out is that the very critique presupposes a MASSIVE theory of truth where all true statements must have other things that make them true which is what truth maker theory is. I've read in some of Craig's other work that he is perfectly willing to listen to a critique based on this idea but to his knowledge (and my own) no theologian or philosopher has risen to the challenge as it is a massive undertaking. White either did not see this or was unwilling to? It's hard to see because they go around in circles on this as well.
(Paraphrase)
White: Where is this limiting truth coming from?
Craig: Why do you assume it has to come from somewhere? You presuppose truth maker theory when you do so.
White: It bothers me that you are not answering the question of where this truth comes from.
Craig: This truth doesn't have an origin and the burden of proof is on you to prove that it should because it is fairly reasonable that at least some truth is not grounded this way and I have given examples in the bible and in common life.
They went around this circle a couple of times.
Third: It really REALLY bothered me that White committed the genetic fallacy. Dr. Craig usually points out the genetic fallacy when he debates Atheists but maybe he didn't out of respect or compassion for the debate. The genetic fallacy basically assumes that if you point out the origin of a belief than the belief must be false. Atheists do this all the time. If you've ever heard a version of arguments such as: "The only reason you believe in God is because your brain evolved to find patterns in things for survival." "You believe in God because you're looking for a father figure in your life." then you've seen the genetic fallacy. Even if I grant them these things, God still might be real regardless. For example, my ability to believe that objects are permanent, that they do not disappear out of existence when I don't see them, is the result of a part of brain development as a child. The only reason I believe that objects are permanent is because there is a part of my brain that developed when I was a kid. Am I then to believe that objects are not permanent because I pointed out its origins?
Even if Molina's theological ideas were a rebellious response to the reformation, they still might be true regardless. Pointing out Molinism's origin is irrelevant to whether or not molinism is true. It's a scummy debate tactic and sloppy thinking and we as Christians should really be better than that.
Finally, In response to you specifically as I do not think it was covered in the debate, Molinism is not deterministic in the way that you say. Just because God knows what will happen does not means he determines it. In the same way that if someone pre-records the football game and tells me who wins. As I watch the football game, I already know the outcome but I do not determine it. Knowing the future and determining the future are not the same thing but it is obviously difficult to understand.
Hopefully this gives people some food for thought.
Cheers.
@@pixmma9627 great comments. In my view, even with the truth maker thing, why not just say: what makes this limitation true is God's preference for freedom of the will. The limitation is not built into God, he could make everyone do as he wills, but God instead wants a world of free creatures & not robots, and therefore doesn't force His will on us. So that's the grounding for God "limiting" himself in this way.
Wow, what a great conversation! Charitible and spicy back and forth. Justin even had time to zone out nearing the end.😁
Both James (Black/) White And Craig were truely authentic tonight 👏👏👏