Reacting to ReasonableFaith's "What About Those Who Never Hear"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- We spent the longest time analyzing a 3:18 long video from Reasonable Faith (William Lane Craig) on “What About Those Who Never Hear?” (found here youtube.com?v=HORwhXSgelQ).
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudio...
#Choice #Destiny #React
Thank you for posting these segments gentlemen. God bless you and your ministry.
“How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”
Romans 10:14-17 ESV
I heard a pastor once say, "If someone can get into heaven without knowing Christ, then the worst thing you can do to them is tell them about Jesus."
No one goes to heaven. The Kingdom of God will be on the earth after the return of Jesus and the resurrection from the dead of the righteous. God is the Judge.
Exactly! If there is even a chance someone can go to heaven without Jesus, why share the gospel at all?
@@MichaelTheophilus906where do you get this information?
@@timothyvenable3336Prob JW
My eternal destiny lies in MY own hands?! How TERRIFYING! God knows what these hands have done. I am NOT MY OWN! I have been bought with a price. For the praise of His Glorious Grace!!
Amen
Thank you, my faith was shaken by this short video this morning, but I get the truth again when I see your videos. Thank you and God bless!
Well Shaking your faith frequently is not a good thing.
How did that video shake your faith ?
If people that never hear the Gospel can be saved, then all mentions of the Gospel must be done away with. All churches must be closed. All Bibles must be burned. All mentions of Jesus must be wiped from the vocabulary. If ignorance of the Gospel is a persons greatest excuse as to why they should be saved, then everything to do with Jesus must be destroyed.
To believe people can be saved without hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ is lunacy.
Right, if people are better off not hearing the Gospel than hearing it and rejecting it, why tell them?
Abraham never knew of Jesus and yet many Christians believe he was saved. Why is that? People say it was because of his faith in God. People around the world may be in a similar position to Abraham. They know and follow their conception of God and morality. However, if Abraham knew about Jesus, do you think he would desire to know more about him? My guess would be yes since Jesus tells us so much about God's relationship to humanity and saves humanity from their sins. Through Jesus we are shown a much more vivid picture of God's plan than Abraham was exposed to. Christianity is the gateway to a very strong relationship with the real God and a better understanding of His love for us.
@@bianardo6552 God preached the gospel to abraham
@@GustAdlph that was the exact response from pretty much every native American tribe when they first encountered protestant missionaries.
Then after a certain point, all your ancestors, no matter what they did, are all automatically in hell. As well as at least 99.97% of all humans to have ever existed, because thats how many never heard the Gospel.
Natural revelation never tells them that God came as a man, lived a sinless perfect life and fulfilled all the righteous demands of the Law, died upon a cross to atone for His ppl’s sins, and rose from the dead three days later for their justification.
I love it when Dr. James White is doing like this kind of videos, giving reactions to someone else’s religious videos. It would be great if he does this very often
Pray for Dr. White. He is a very confused man.
The thumb squishing got me
11:07
If they can respond and be accepted on the basis of natural revelation alone it seems this would kill missions, would it not?
Exactly...
But this is referring to pre-Colombian Native Americans. People who legitimately had no knowledge of Christ because they lived in an unknown continent. What happens to them? How could a missionary have known about them?
@@randomango2789The fact that a missionary could not have known them shows that God did not choose to extend mercy and grace upon them. Think about God's choosing of the ancient Hebrews; all other nations were outside God's covenant with the Jews, and only the latter had the Law, the Prophets, the Temple, and the Scriptures. Yes, there were some proselytes to the Jewish religion, but most of the rest of mankind was lost. Yet, I don't usually hear people complain about God "passing over" those who for centuries were outside the Mosaic covenant. Bottom line, the offer of mercy and grace cannot demanded to be given to all; otherwise mercy and grace, by definition, are no longer mercy and grace.
@@LeeBartoletti Romans 1:20- “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
People often cite this verse say that those who never hear will go to Hell anyway because they didn’t know about Christ. However, this passage isn’t saying that. What Paul is explaining is that everyone has general knowledge of God’s law which is written in their hearts and that monotheism is true. The rest of the chapter goes on to explain that the Romans used to know God but rejected him for polytheism where they worship the created things of this world. It doesn’t follow that by using this passage, it would mean that a person who lives in an unknown part of the world also has direct knowledge of the gospels because it hasn’t been preached to him.
Let’s say there’s a Native American living in the year 1275. After coming to the knowledge of there being one God or higher power that created all things, he rejects the polytheism that his people practice and tries to convince them of monotheism. He also tries his best to live in accordance to the inner law that is within him. Eventually his people have enough of him and he gets martyred for his beliefs. Since he doesn’t know of the name Jesus, will he still go to Hell?
Also, in regards of what u said about Israel being chosen while the rest of the world being lost. It was the common view among the church fathers that people who lived before Christ were judged by the knowledge they had of God. If u read 2nd Apology Ch. 13, you’ll see this view in Justin Martyr’s writings. People like Plato, Socrates, and Cumaean Sibyl were seen as pre-Christian prophets.
Lastly, you might bring up Acts 17:30-31 where it says : “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
But just as the passage says, Paul is assuming that the final judgment was going to happen in his lifetime. That’s why he was so eager to go to Spain and preach salvation to as many people as possible. Since we can’t know for sure if we’re in the end times, does ignorance still apply to people who never hear the gospel? After all, God desires for all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4).
@@LeeBartolettiWould that mean that for centuries, God chose to extend mercy to white Europeans, and few else?
Golden brain of this era as far as Biblical theology is concerned. James White is indeed a gift for the church.
I think you read entirely too into a 4 minute video. Just because it didn’t say something’s doesn’t mean it’s not eluding to them. It’s a video for unbelievers. That said you did clear up some things for me, Thank you.
Craig by his own admission does not preach the Gospel but instead preaches philosophy.
Molinism is not nearly as satisfying a theological system to me as to WLC.
beautiful beard. Full of power.
why does Reasonable Faith think that hiring a New Zealander to read their script will make their video more effective? do they really think this makes their message more persuasive?
Even better question, why are Calvinists so often arrogant jerks? 🤔
Yes Americans are at times that simple, coming from an American.
**laughs Ray Comort-ingly**
😂😢
Doesn't sound like any NZers I've ever met, and I'm from NZ. Sounds like South African
Those who’ve never heard the gospel take what they see via natural revelation and attribute it to some sort of idol. That’s the thrust of Paul’s argument in Romans 1:18ff.
I'm a watcher of reasonable faith and I'm disappointed that craig got so much wrong. I trusted him and all those apologists that told me this response. I think I believed it because it sounds more "fair" to me. But after watching this video I was convinced that this guy was telling the truth. It seems like craig didnt even look at the bible when he was making this video lol.
I've been trying to find an answer to this problem for a while now and it bothers me tbh. I would love if you could give me your view on this issue. Maybe do a separate video about this topic (this was the first video I've seen you do so I dont know if you've already done it).
I'm a Christian and I trust God to do what's just to those that are not privileged enough to know him. But the amount of people that would be damned for this reason is certainly a scary thought. It leaves a bitter taste in my mouth and I'm sure you can understand. Thanks -Erik
Maybe this would become an introduction for you to reformed theology if you’re not familiar with it.
On RUclips- “what is reformed theology?” R C Sproul - (12 x approx 20 mins each part) is a must watch.
@@joshuaeliaquimramos2972 thanks I'll look into it.
@@chrismachin2166 thank you I will watch it.
@@marmar051 I also like to recommend reading the historic confessions as they do a good job of summarizing the theology as a cohesive whole.
I especially like the Westminster Confession as it arranges it topically and is well organized as one single document. The Three Forms of Unity (which is made up of three documents: the Belgic Confession of Faith, the Canons of Dort, and the Heidelberg Catechism) is also worth checking out.
" You do not want fairness; you want mercy and grace."
If my eternal destiny lay in my own hands, I have no hope whatsoever. If even the smallest part of my salvation is dependent upon me, I am assured of total destruction. There is nothing good in me. Not even a willingness to good, lest my willingness be the determining factor in why I am saved but another not. But we know that our salvation is not of ourselves. We did not choose Him. He chose us.
I am not a Calvinist and I have a few issues- I imagine they have been raised many times, but I personally haven't found an adequate response.
If one's salvation is entirely dependent on God's sovereign will alone, does this not mean that God has essentially created trillions upon trillions of human souls just so he can burn them in eternal torment forever after living only a few decades of life (assuming you all believe in eternal conscious punishment)? Sure, one can argue that these 'unsaved' individuals still serve a purpose on earth, almost akin to an 'NPC' in a video game - however, computer NPCs aren't actual conscious beings who wind up in eternal torture.
You can argue that "Technically everyone deserves to go to hell anyway, and it is only because God has mercy on a select few that ANY are saved at all". Sure, everyone who ever lived is imperfect... but who ever asked to be born in the first place? I'm pretty sure that any 'unsaved' individual would much prefer having never been born than exist forever 8n hell. Eternity is a long time - I imagine that after a few years of straight unending hellfire agony, any semblance or remembrance of who the person even was in life is completely forgotten. All they will know is suffering. Forever. This is especially troubling if you consider that most people throughout history died very young and already lived miserable lives. Many probably thought they might find solace in death....
Also, what about the issue of preaching the gospel in the first place? What is the point in going out of your way to spread Jesus's message if the only factor regarding one's salvation is if God forces them to believe anyway? Why not just let God do all the work - especially if he's the ONLY one who can?
And finally, it is my understanding that God created us because he wants to be loved just like he loves us. I assume Calvin's believe the same thing? If God wants genuine love, what value is their in being loved by a being who was programmed to love him? Is 'forced love' real love at all? Isn't love a choice?
I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I've just always been baffled by the Calvinist viewpoint. I can understand wanting to be as humble as possible - to not even take any credit for a single 'good' choice you make. But just because God has the power to be completely sovereign over every aspect of reality doesn't mean he CAN'T endow us with free-will.
What is your opinion on Christians who reject the Calvinist view? Do you consider us to be 'unsaved'? Proud? Would someone who professes to follow Christ wind up being sent to hell for eternity because they 'wrongly' believed that they willingly chose to follow him of their own free-will?
Hello there. As a Calvinist who was also once as troubled as you are, I'd be glad to answer your questions, and I hope I can answer them accurately and biblically.
1. What's the point of God creating human beings if He ultimately knows that billions of them will send themselves to hell for eternity?
Now, I assume that you have a problem with this obviously because it sounds--cruel or unreasonable--at first, for God to do. First, to set aside your problem with eternal damnation, God is an eternal being; therefore, the punishment for sinning against Him shall also be eternal.
Now about why God created man, this brings up the fundamental question: why *did* God create? What is the point of Him creating Adam, knowing that he would sin and cause mankind to be captive to sin and eternal damnation? Here is the simple answer: God created man for His glory. "Everyone who is called by My name, *And whom I have created for My glory*, Whom I have formed, even whom I have made.” (Isaiah 43:7) So, yes. Every story and occurrence in history recorded in the Bible? The sole purpose for all of it is for God's glory-- like God sending a flood to judge the wicked world or God saving His people from the bondage of Egypt-- it's all for the glory of God. And in the salvation of man through Jesus, we also see just that.
Romans 9: 16-23 "So then, it does not depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.
One of you will say to me, “Then why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why did You make me like this?” Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use?
What if God, intending to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the vessels of His wrath, prepared for destruction? What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the vessels of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory" (PLEASE READ THE WHOLE CHAPTER OF ROMANS 9, it has one of the strongest foundations for Calvinism)
So in the first verses, Paul makes a point that salvation doesn't depend on human effort, but God's choice of mercy. Just like how God didn't show Pharaoh mercy because His intended purpose for him was to display his justice and power through him. Someone then argues like "Isn't that unfair? For God to allow men to be born sinners and not give them mercy?" And this is Paul's answer..."*Who are you o man to talk back to God?*" God is the potter. We are the pots. And the potter has the freedom to determine the purposes of His pots. Some vessels are created to display and make known God's holiness and righteous wrath (sinners who rightly go to hell), and some vessels are created to show God's grace and mercy (sinners who are justified to go to heaven). Do you see the amazing concept here? When people are rightly sent to hell for their sins, God is glorified as His holiness and divine justice are made known, and when people are saved from their sins to enter heaven, God is glorified for displaying His grace in the redemption of the elect. So that is the reason for the system of salvation. It all has a powerful purpose in glorifying God.
2. What is the point of sharing the Gospel to unbelievers if God will eventually grant them faith anyway?
Well, the obvious answer here is, people cannot believe in the Gospel if they DON'T even know the Gospel.
"Consequently, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." (Romans 10:17)
We see here that faith comes from hearing the message. People are granted saving faith once they have heard the Gospel, which we disciples are commanded to spread into the nations.
3. Didn't God created us because He wanted to be loved? What's the point of that if He's actually the One causing us to love Him?
Now, for the answer to God's purpose in creating mankind, refer to my answer to the first question. God did not create us because he was lonely, He created us for His glory, to make known all of His divine and awesome attributes--His holiness, righteousness, justice, wrath against evil, grace, mercy, and everything else--Also, obviously as a Calvinist, I will have to disagree that we are "forced" to love God, but rather that He enables us to love Him. As created beings, all of us are subject to loving a perfect being that is God, but our will to do so is tainted and bound by sin, until God frees us from it by giving us a heart of flesh.
I hope I was able to answer all of that properly. If you still have any questions or if there's anything unclear from what I've said, feel free to say so. I'd be glad to help you on this.
@@charlesascano8616
I appreciate you taking the time to respond.
My understanding from this is that God does NOT desire to be loved - he only desires to be glorified. I suppose that's fair enough, as I suppose that nobody even has the capacity to love God in the first place, except those whom he specifically ordains to -love- glorify him.
I know you said that he doesn't 'force' his elect to love him, rather he 'enables' them to love him. But 'enabling' would indicate a choice, a 'choice' implies that it could be rejected, which it obviously cannot be because God will not allow his chosen elect to fall from his grasp. So there really is no choice, right?
And I guess I can't argue that God is the potter, he certainly has the ability and capability to do whatever he wants. If he wants to create billions of self-aware beings - the vast majority of which will essentially serve no other purpose but to be tormented for eternity in some designated literal hellhole of the universe - who can tell him he can't?
But doesn't the scriptures also say that God 'takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked'? (and it's debatable whether 'death' here is even referring to eternal conscious torment). Is this a mistranslation or taken out of context? Surely God must take great pleasure in tormenting the wicked, as his ultimate goal is to bring glory unto himself. If he alone controls every single aspect of existence, and his ultimate and only goal is to glorify himself, would that not mean that he enjoys everything he does?
Forgive me if I'm coming off snarky. I know this topic has been the source of a lot of friction in the church. I should mention that I always had a lot of respect for the late theologian, R.C. Sproul, who was one of the biggest names in Calvinism in modern times. Even though I don't agree on your theology, I still see you all as brethren in the Lord. I do wonder though, do you believe that non-Calvinist Christians could make up any portion of God's 'elect'? Or would our 'pride' in our belief of free-will actually mean we are blasphemers?
@@N.i.E.M.O
Hello again.
1. Just to confirm regarding your last question, I don't think any Calvinist believes in any shape or form that only Calvinists are the elect. We stand fully with the Bible that those who repent and believe will be saved, and that they are predestined and chosen by God to do so. Whether it's Calvinism, Arminianism, or Molinism, soteriology could be regarded as a minor doctrinal difference, and it's nowhere equivalent to one's saving faith and repentance.
2. Since I really have no time or the adequate ability to explain and articulate it myself, here is a link to gotquestions.org's full article on Irresistible Grace which also tackles the misconceptions about it:
www.gotquestions.org/irresistible-grace.html
3. Regarding the passage you provided, it is actually one of the "bible contradictions" that people often bring up.
- Ezekiel 18:32 "‘For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God"
- Deuteronomy 28:63 "‘And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you"
Here is John Piper's take on it (who you might know as a prominent Calvinist theologian): www.desiringgod.org/interviews/does-god-delight-in-destroying-sinners
@@N.i.E.M.O _"If one's salvation is entirely dependent on God's sovereign will alone, does this not mean that God has essentially created trillions upon trillions of human souls just so he can burn them in eternal torment forever after living only a few decades of life (assuming you all believe in eternal conscious punishment)?"_
I think this first question ends up being a case of denying the antecedent (a.k.a fallacy of the inverse). If we have an example of "P therefore Q", that doesn't tell us anything about what follows if P is false.
You also seem to imply that sinners don't deserve hell for their wilful defiance of God and instead seem to postulate a God who just wants to torture people. That is not the Reformed position. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
_"I'm pretty sure that any 'unsaved' individual would much prefer having never been born than exist forever 8n hell."_
So? I'm sure murders would rather not be punished for their crime as well. The convict isn't in charge of their sentencing, and if they didn't want to face the consequences of their actions, they shouldn't have defied the law. The fact that none of us chose to be born is no more an excuse before a human judge sentencing a murderer as it is before our creator judging our willful sins against him. We still sin and are condemned for our sin.
_"What is the point in going out of your way to spread Jesus's message if the only factor regarding one's salvation is if God forces them to believe anyway? Why not just let God do all the work - especially if he's the ONLY one who can?"_
God commands us to, and God can use means to convert people. Why willfully defy God in this matter, especially given that this follows immediately after making clear that you don't want the consequences of what happens when we willfully disobey God's commands?
_"If God wants genuine love, what value is their in being loved by a being who was programmed to love him? Is 'forced love' real love at all? Isn't love a choice?"_
That doesn't resemble the Reformed position. We love God freely having been given a renewed heart.
And how does your earlier point of having no choice to be born fit into this? Is love between a parent and child a forced love or not real given that the child has no choice to be the child? If yes, doesn't that imply the same problem with God on non-Calvinist assumptions? If not, why should it be a problem for Calvinism?
_"What is your opinion on Christians who reject the Calvinist view?"_
We aren't saved by perfect theology, but by God. If God judged us based on our theology, everyone would be condemned, even Calvinists, as all of us get various aspects of God wrong. God is mighty to save.
I believe Reformed Theology is a more accurate portrayal of the Bible's teaching, but that does not mean people who reject it are rejecting the essential doctrines of the faith.
_"My understanding from this is that God does NOT desire to be loved - he only desires to be glorified."_
That isn't true on Calvinism. In fact God's greatest commandment is to love him with our entire being heart, soul, and strength.
Old comment, but yes its ridicilous when you have the eternal torments version of hell, which is unbiblical.
I just finished watching that Craig video and I was stunned, hurt, confused and then enraged. I responded harshly in their comment section. Then my next response was to run to the teacher that I trust....
Thank you Dr. James White for your faithful defence of our precious, beloved Gospel of Jesus Christ. Dr. Craig needs prayer and to repent of his heretical teaching among others.
Presbyterian, here, and yeah. Second commandment violated.
Dr. White made an excellent point when he discussed the fundamental difference between fairness and justice; and warned the viewer about the fact that one is to either received justice or mercy and grace. Respectfully, Dr. Rios
Though I'm not the biggest fan of WLC, I think we should try to also understand how they are using the word "fairness." Some use "fairness" and "justice" synonymously. I do disagree with Dr. White's interpretation of II Timothy 2:4. Even Charles Spurgeon called it taking grammatical "dynamite" to the text.
Its hard to give up man's desire for autonomy, its in our nature to be self-centered but God in His mercy shattered my pride and after several years of wrestling I see my sin and my wretchedness, to Him be all the Glory
Dr. White, if you are correct that men are universally condemned without hearing the gospel, then Peter and Paul were badly mistaken in their teachings, and you are greater than they are…
“Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” - Acts 10:34-35
(Peter does not say “everyone who does good is condemned anyway and needs the gospel.” He says they are “acceptable to Him.”)
“He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.” - Romans 2:6-11
(According to Paul, the Lord is going grant eternal life to some Gentiles based on their good works. Something which should never happen, if your teaching is correct.)
Romans 10:14-17 (LSB): 14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?
15 And how will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who proclaim good news of good things!”
16 However, they did not all heed the good news, for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?”
17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
I could not get the link to work to view the original video without interruption.
However, what seems to me to be 'unfair' is to take a very brief video, giving a simple presentation and then to deconstruct it comment by comment and impose your Views on it, taking as long as you wish to do so.
And what was Dr White's answer to the question ?
The answer people give is very often either vague or influenced by their own understanding/ interpretation of scripture. i, for one, do not think Goid is some kind of moral monster who would let the igmorant rot. According to Genesis, the punishment for Adam's disobedience was death. ( Gen 2 :17 ). The NT tells us that the wages of sin is death . So what about those who never heard of Christ and who die in ignorance? Rev 20 talks about a resurrection where people are judged according to scrolls. They are judged according to their deeds - not those of the past - but the ones they display having been resurrected and responding to the gospel. Then, death and the grave/bible hel;l are destroyed forever. God is just and fair. People get an opportunity to exercise their free will. Simple.
Short attention spans make for bad theology.
Bad theology makes for short attention spans
@@benjamincamping8134a bad attention span lead to short theology.
(I posted this to keep the thread going. I am shocked at how it actually fits)
Hahahaha Are we going to cycle through this infitiely now?
@@benjamincamping8134 spans of attention leads to theology short. Sounds a bit like the Puritans, doesn't it? LOL
I like Dr. Craig's videos, but I certainly disagree with him on this. Since Jesus is God incarnate, then one drop of His blood is worth infinitely more than all the suffering in hell put together.
I take the fall of Adam seriously and your objection toward the beginning is unacceptable. God not owing all salvation doesn't alter the fact that "God WANTS all to be saved". It doesn't alter the fact that "God is love". Therefore, the theology behind the question is stellar.
I’m not quite sure what Dr white means when he says “God deals with the cards he has been dealt”. This seems very much like a straw man or misunderstanding of molinism. Rather God isnt dealing with things out of his control logically prior to his Divine degree as if it was luck of someone else’s hands. Rather, these counterfactual truths of human freedom are dependent fully by what world He chooses to create and who to put in it. It seems that Dr white is so fundamentally committed to divine determinism that (counterfactual knowledge of free creatures) doesn’t make sense from his perspective. If one were to accept as theologians perfect being theology then we are therefore committed to God being omnibenevolent. Dr White you are correct in that God doesn’t owe us anything at all, but being omnibenevolent means it’s logically impossible for God to be unjust. Gods sovereignty cannot supersede his other attributes to the point of contradiction.
Lastly rejecting human freedom in scripture makes every story extremely difficult and logically trivial. For example in scripture you have
1.) People face a multitude of divine exhortations and commands
2.) People are said to obey, believe, and choose God.
3.) People sin and rebel against God and his commands
4.) Their sins are judged by God.
5.) people are tested by God
6.) people receive divine rewards
7.) The elect is responsible for responding to Gods' initiative.
8.) priers are not mere showpieces scripted by God.
9.) God literally pleads with sinners to repent and be saved over and over and over.
Doing theology without philosophy is about as possible as going to the moon without a rocket ship. Surely you are correct in that philosophy shouldn’t determine our theology. However if our theology is correct it won’t trouble correct logic and philosophy.
God doesnt owe anyone anything, but the Bible is clear that He didnt die for nothing. The great commission is a clear inference.
"God wants everyone to be saved and to fully understand the truth."
Seems very straightforward. In no way is it even insinuated that this refers to specific persons of all tribes/nations.
Are you talking about 1 Timothy?
I agree with everything you said today, James, but ,.........., your wife dressed you wrong today.... just sayin'...
Honest question... do you all consider what Craig is teaching here about not having to hear about Christ to be saved a damnable heresy?
It's a serious theological error. But I would not call it a damnable heresy.
That final line in particular, "our eternal destiny truely lies in our own hands," sounds outright blasphemous to me. Salvation is of the Lord; we don't save ourselves.
It's really hard to consider WLC a brother at this point as it seems clear he is preaching another gospel.
The Bible speaks very harshly to those who do that...
Oh stop it.
This is the funniest thing I've ever seen.
That is when different types of insane people argue with each other.
What's wrong with being insane?
Are you not insane?
Love ya James
grace is an undeserved gift.
fairness give all the chance to be saved. justice is the result of your chance decision. White denies what the bible says making God neither fair or just.
So does White think that God condemns people because of their lack of knowledge about Christ? Who knows because he doesn't make an argument. To argue against Craig as a calvinist means that God designed the world so that people CANNOT EVERY receive salvation because God designed it so they couldn't possibly have every received. That means that God condemns people for not responding to something they couldn't have know! Sorry James, that's unjust!
If people are saved outside the gospel then what is the point of evangelizing?
@@ShepherdMinistry Can a person freely choose to respond positively to the Gospel?
@@TheGreaser9273 So, you’re not going to answer my question?
Thanks for posting and keeping the comments open.
00:30 - The heart of the matter is weather people are capable and/or willing. James White (JW) and (WLC) both hold to man being unwilling and incapable of doing right that they need Christ Atoning Sacrifice. the difference is that WLC holds to the direct cause of this happens within each one's life and JW holds that it happened when Adam sinned. So verses like Romans 3,10 and Ecclesiastes 7:20 take more of a prophetic proclamation of God's Wisdom on WLC's view than JW's view of a causal decree.
White says "God does not owe anybody anything" in such a way as if God has no obligations at all. This leads to a false belief because it is not God but Satan who has no obligations since monsters have no obligations they can do or not do whatever.
But since God is a loving, righteous, and good Being, He most definitely is obligated to act in a loving, righteous, and good way and that means that God is obligated to do everything in His might to establish a good and loving relationship with His creation because that is a good and loving and righteous thing to do.
The issue is of course, that this is exactly what God is doing. It will take time and suffering but eventually, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that God is not just God but that He is a good loving, and righteous God and to worship and exalt and serve Him is the best thing that all creation can do.
Knowledge plays some sort of role in sin I think. Adam and Eve were naked before they ate of the fruit. They weren’t going to die BEFORE they ate of the fruit (of knowledge of good and evil). Once they are of that tree and became aware of their nakedness, that’s when they were compelled to repent (by covering up) and to try to hide themselves from God. The Law condemned them. So, you could use this as a basis for arguing that knowledge adds to a person’s guilt in sin. The problem here is what would have happened to Adam and Eve had they never ate of the tree. Presumably, they would have lived forever and been sinless. The other side of this would be that we inherited the knowledge of good and evil from Adam along with his sin, so maybe it’s him eating of the fruit that gave us all a “conscious” that tells us we’re guilty for doing something immoral
As for the question at hand, if God wanted to reveal Himself to someone who is isolated from Christians, He very well could
Romans 2:14-15
New International Version
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)
If you took the Bible seriously, you wouldn’t be a calvinist.
The Muslim line of thinking is similar. You’ll be judged on everything you do but upmost mercy and justice will be shown to those that either never were exposed to Islam or didn’t know certain things were sins. After all, it’s not that though Allah didn’t predestine you to be exposed to whatever he wanted you exposed to. James White has a serious issue when it comes to actual justice and mercy when it comes to Calvinism.
No chance for those who never heard? Lucky for me I heard AND believed. Whew! Proverbs 16:33
Lucky?
What else do you say "fortunate" my dad can't stand the word lucky, but fortunate is fine, to me kinda the same thing. If youve heard the words of JESUS and believed then I would say your kinda lucky
@@adamguy33Luck is the result of random chance. Salvation is God's choice.
@@bisdakpinoy3428 I'm referring to the idea of salvation by chance.
@@marcsalyer9725 is anything really random, look up chuck misler on how to find a random number, is anything truly random , maybe not. Thats why I believe true free will is the trickiest thing in all creation to create. Dont worry the Lord over came this problem even though its the toughest problem that has ever been to over come
In the Old Testament Yahweh destroyed many thousand of idol worshiping pagans.
It’s interesting to see two opposing sides in a debate. Some steel-man the arguments of the opposition while other straw-man. Both (usually) believe they are correct but some act like the smartest guy in the room and question their opponents’ intelligence and intentions. Which demeanor seems more reasonable, James White or William Lane Craig?
How about which is more biblical?
😮
If those people who never heard of Christ and can still be saved by what they know, isn't that salvation by works?!
That was my thought, too. On the other hand, if people are responsible for the light they have been given, and everybody is given the light of morality, that doesn't acquit anybody. It does just the opposite since everybody sins.
Knowledge isn't works. If it were, faith would be works also.
Christ's sacrafice paled in comparison to Adams fall. If Adam took all of mankind down, but Christ only saved some, how Is that victory.
You can ask Him yourself when you see Him.
Secular history will be repeated as nothing new under the sun, Eccl 3:15 is a hint you should consider the allegory is proper reading about every thing is taking place in man not outside shadows repeated in churches made with hands. Galatians another hint that shows OT is allegories.
The question remains, how then will the people who never heard the gospel be saved?
Consider this statement; God would never punish an innocent person. Do you agree?
@@ogmakefirefiregood then he’ll go on to say, “no one is innocent”
God doesn't owe anyone Grace. He can give us justice and still be Holy.
@@ogmakefirefiregood I can’t understand the point that he gives grace to you and not to the next person near you.. who is in a same position as you..
I trust God will always do what is right. He has given us light on this question in the sense of why He calls some to saving faith. 1 Corinthians 1:26-31
Romans 9:14-24
Why people didnt know until now that Gospel is commandment?
Surely we will witness a debate between Dr White and Dr Craig about Soteriology ???
You won’t see that debate because WLC has refused to debate him for decades and he knows White will school him badly.
@@BRNRDNCK would be a total clinic for sure
Dr. Craig doesn't debate Christians.
It already happened
@@ttff-bd2yf It was supposed to be about the problem of evil, but White steered it into soteriology and Craig didn't want to follow him.
Man reasonablefaith teaching some 🗑 🚮 makes you wonder if these people even care what the Bible says instead of trying not to offend man
It is a very similar argument used against Calvinism...God is unfair because he does not give people not elected to heaven a chance to be saved-almost like if God gave them a chance-God took it away.
My response is usually along these lines. I am 47(seems wierd to say that as I don’t feel 47). I have had 47 years of chances to get saved and am glad one year, I did when I was 13.
Point is every day, hour, minute, and second is a chance to come to God.
Pride, pride, pride
The video is only describing Calvinism in a little different way...
If man knows god exists why do we need the Bible? Haha I thought James said man in his fallen state can't know god? Haha tennis without the net...
Wow! You need to do some reading. You are completely misunderstanding.
Secrets of ages is properly taught by Neville Goddard if you desire to wake up
You must mean this as a joke? Following Neville Goddard can only be going further into darkness. The direction away from truth. To wake up is to go the opposite direction of Goddard.
If you desire to wake up.
I'll save others the time of even looking this guy up. From Secrets of ages Neville Goddard...
Does Neville Goddard believe in God?
Goddard did not believe in an external God who answers prayers, but rather that every human being is God individualized as that person, "you are the creator".
Calvinism is sure logical. It's so not biblical though 😄
I guess you have not read the Bible.
In what way?
@@wretch1 In a way that believes what it says and doesn't try to rationalize a way around it.