William Lane Craig vs James White - Calvinism vs Molinism: which best addresses the Problem of Evil?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 дек 2021
- 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.reasonablefaith.org
For the 2013 Bill Craig & Paul Helm dialogue on Calvinism & Molinism: bit.ly/3o550G0
• Register for Premier Unbelievable? Live: www.unbelievable.live
• Get our 'Confident Christianity' course: www.premier.org.uk/course
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsight.org/unbelie...
• Rest of the world: resources.premier.org.uk/supp...
• Newsletter: www.premier.org.uk/Unbelievab...
• Blog: www.premierinsight.org/unbeli...
• For the podcast: www.premierchristianradio.com/...
• 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?
😄😄😄
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.
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!!!!
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.
Well if we had a will that would follow God through thick and thin 100% of the time maybe He would trust us but we don't so He doesn't. Even the great Apostle Paul said in Romans 7:18 "And I know that NOTHING good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I can’t."
@@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).
There are 1676 commandments in the scriptures. NO ONE can follow all of them 100% of the time. If someone claims they are sinless they are lying which is a sin. I'm not advocating that we should be lackadaisical in our lives and cave into the thinking that "well everyone sins all the time so it is not a big deal." It was certainly a "big deal" to Jesus, so big that He gave His life to redeem us. We must recognize the need to honestly confess our sins to God, receive forgiveness, and press on to the higher calling that He desires for us.@@JAGChristianos
In John 3:3 Jesus said "you must be born from above." Nicodemus says " How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" Since we humans tend to see everything from a physical standpoint old Nic of course sees "born from above" as something that can be done physically. Jesus corrects his thinking in verses 5 & 6 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." To be born from above means that God institutes this birth and it is a spiritual birth not a physical birth. When one is born again (born from above) it is a radical life changing event just as being born physically is a radical life changing event. That means if you have not had a radical life changing event happen to you, you most likely are not saved.
I was born from above (saved) at 10:20 am in Toledo, Ohio on February 2, 1975. When was yours?@@JAGChristianos
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 🤣🤣🤣
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
WLC was being very nice here. He usually goes scorched earth and intellectually annihilates his opponents. This is brotherly love being shown by Craig.
What a conversation! Really enjoyed this.
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 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.
Fantastic debate!
Love them both.
Great knowledge here
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.
@@rhondarenee1387 I hope you will keep reading the Bible and praying for answers. I can't imagine the emptiness of life without God...
@@rhondarenee1387 I'd love to dialogue with you! Of course I have the ulterior motive of getting you to become a Christian!
@@rhondarenee1387 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
Thanks to Justin for taking those subtle pauses through the debate, just to break it down for the audience. True professional
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.
Great and respectful debate!
Great debate! I really enjoyed this!
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.
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.
Excellent discussion/debate! Edifying!! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Very knowlagable debate. Thanks for sharing!
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?
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??
Hi all at premier unbelievable. Always love these debates on this channel. God bless.
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"
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)
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.
I loved this debate , thanks so much for sharing!
How did I never know this happened? Can't wait to watch.
“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.
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
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).
Good debate! Thanks for this
I found it frustrating that James White really didn’t answer the question of how God is not the author of evil within Calvinism. He sidestepped it the whole debate
He said God decreed evil but isn’t the immediate author of evil and this is scriptural
Theistic compatibalism...but I do not believe it worked...
He did a few times but because it wasn't a small, simple answer, it flew over most people's heads.
@@jonathanhauhnar8434 well do you believe the infallible inerrant revealed word of God?
I reckon you don't .
@@mosespsalm_1108 Call me simple but, I would think, decreeing and authoring are somewhat synonymous.
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
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"
52:33 LOLL Thank you Dr Craig for calling out his presuppositions
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.
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.
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.
OUTSTANDING REPLY!@@mostlybones_
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?
@@auggiebendoggyWell I have some very bad news for the "God loves everybody" crowd and I got my information from the single greatest expert on God's word, God Himself!
Proverbs 6:16 thru 19 "There are six things the LORD hates-, seven things he detests: haughty eyes,
a lying tongue, hands that kill the innocent, a heart that plots evil, feet that race to do wrong, a false witness who pours out lies, and a person who sows discord in a family."
Psalm 11:5 "The LORD examines both the righteous and the wicked. He hates those who love violence.'
Mal 1:2-3 "I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau."
Romans 9:13 "In the words of the Scriptures, “Jacob, I have loved but Esau I have hated.”
God is perfect so that means His hate is perfect unlike man's hate. Even a casual reading of Revelation will show God 'swrath on mankind. As an example I will quote a couple of passages.
Rev 9:3-4-5 “Then locusts came from the smoke and descended on the earth, and they were given power to sting like scorpions. They were told not to harm the grass or plants or trees, but only the people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. They were told not to kill them but to torture them for five months with pain like the pain of a scorpion sting.”
Revelation 9:18 “One-third of all the people on earth were killed by these three plagues-by the fire and smoke and burning sulfur that came from the mouths of the horses.”
If Christ were to return tomorrow and raptures the 2 billion Christians on earth today that means 6 billion people would be left on earth. One third of 6 billion is 1 billion 980 million people that are going to die when this happens (assuming the population of the earth stays the same as today).
Justin is quite simply the best host for these debates.
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.
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!!
Man my head was spinning at times! But I got it in time. Great thinkers! Both of them !
I have rewatched this a few times and James White said that humans are not these simple beings that what we would do is easily known because even he surprises himself. I agree we are not simple, to humans, but we are certain simple to God...🤷🏾♂️
Thanks Dr White and Dr Craig for the fascinating discussion. Couldn't wait to see such great scholars discuss such an amazing topic.
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
I respect both of these men.
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
This is UNBELIEVABLE! Thank you, brothers, for this awesome and thought provoking conversation. Very much appreciated.
Props to the moderator for keeping the discussion on topic and the points clear.
I'll be happy to see another round of this, it is great!
Isaiah 45:7 What God says of Himself is sufficient. We're the ones uncomfortable.
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 that what if it's within God's will to limit HIS OWN sovereignty. 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 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.
We need more discussion between great debaters. If not an actual debate itself.
“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
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
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.
!!!! I can’t believe I haven’t watched this yet!
God bless you Justin. You finally gave me something to look forward to watching on RUclips.
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.
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.
52:00 Good point from Dr. White
Satan has freedom, yet limited, from the fall from Gods throne to turn man's hearts against truth.
I really enjoyed this discussion... I hope someday they will have a more formal debate on the matter... much thanks to everyone involved in this video.
William Lane Craig’s face while White speaks is the same face I made during this entire debate 😂😂😂😂
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.
Quote " The truths of Scripture also line up with common sense." "Common sense" like in:
If you want to be rich sell everything you have and give it to the poor. “Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.” Mark 10:21
Lose so you can gain! “For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ.” Philippians 3:8
If you want to be exalted, humble yourself. “Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you.” James. 4:10
If you want to be first, be last. “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.” Matthew 20:16
If you want to be strong, be weak. “For when I am weak, then I am strong.” 2 Corinthians 12:10
If you want to be free, become a slave. “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.” Romans 6:22
If you want to live, you must die. “For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.” Matthew 16:25
Yup, scripture always makes good 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"
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
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.
"You contribute nothing to your salvation but the sin that makes it necessary".
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
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?
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.
If our choices are functions of the circumstances, as WLC says, then the choices are "free" in name only. Genuine freedom would allow for different choices in the same exact set of circumstances. That is, given the same set of circumstances, the chooser could choose A, or not-A: both are entirely possible and it is not even in principle possible to predict or know beforehand what the chooser would choose.
White sounds a lot friendlier here than when he was debating Leighton Flowers.
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.
Im glad William and James finally got to communicate
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?
37:20 - " I don't know why God didn't just put them in a situation where they would do freely"...."why would he need to do any of this if has just put them in situations where they act freely". That's a great point.
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
I have been waiting this for a very long time.....probably a decade or so.
This seems more like a conversation, not a debate.
Both great men of God, not sure who won this debate.. but certainly gets me thinking on what is a fascinating subject.
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)
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 was hilarious every time James White treated a proof text from the Bible to support divine determinism as a "Gotcha!" moment, it was a perfect example of a proof text to support Molinism. Every time James White provided an example from Scripture I would say, "Wait. Doesn't that support the argument you're trying to disprove?" 😂
God knows what each of us could would and will do in any set of circumstances (middle knowledge) and orchestrates every part of our lives to accomplish his will so that he is both sovereign and we are free to choose. The problem I have with this is it implies that God was given a certain set of “pieces” (us) with all of these possibilities to puzzle together to accomplish his will - but who made the pieces? Who designed each of us in such a way that we would do this or that in each various circumstance? Who gave God these players to arrange and in creation set the parameters of the possibilities of their actions? God did. So we’re back to where we started.
I love WIlliam Lane Craig, such a beautiful decent person.
Terrific discussion on a mind boggling topic, thank you!
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.
Just as darkness is the absence of light. Evil is the absence of God's Love. God gave us free will, and we choose to follow God or not. We live in a sinful world. God doesn't stop our choices, he walks with us.
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 👏👏👏
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.
Dang it I should have subscribed along time ago.
Psalm 78:41 (KJV) : "Yea, they turned back and tempted God and LIMITED the Holy One of Israel".
I am a calvinist, but I think molonist helps me better understand the works of God and actions of man in the Scriptures