Atonement Issues of William L. Craig
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- we looked at issues relating to the atonement, first in comments from William Lane Craig on the extent of the atonement.
All production and credit belongs to Alpha and Omega Ministries®.
If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/
The guy doing the thumbnails for all the highlights is having to much fun lolol
😂👍
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I laughed at the thumbnail 😂
"Christ as High Priest didn't offer to us He offer himself to the Father" Good Point sir
No christian would disagree with this
@@DimensiondelosSecretos self centered christian will disagree on this because he thinks every good things must be received by him
@@DimensiondelosSecretos 5:25
Arminians and molinist believe that Jesus offer himself to us,or it was God who offer His Son to all,and if we have faith in him,then we will get the benefit,the fact is that God the father sent his son to offer this to himself,And Jesus offer himself to His Father,Holy spirit will working and making people regenerated and born again and sealed, "i shall lose none of it" -Jesus
@@ManlyServant I don't know a single christian who believes that, we all believe that Jesus offer himself to the father, so that all who believe get saved...
And please don't use your typical proof text with me, i was a calvinist, I know how your philosophy works...
Just read romans 5.1.2, we first need faith in order to access grace, so regeneration before faith is a lie
So god offered himself to god?
Love the thumbnail 😂😂😂😂
lol
LOL, I know...he looks stoned.
lol
Yeah
Dr James White, your teaching on Christ as High Priest AND the sacrificial lamb have been some of the greatest teachings that have formed my mind to Christ. They are so profound and thank you for this insight!
Everyone limits the Atonement (accept Universalists); either in the scope (who it is applied to) or in Power (he efficacy of the Holy Blood)!
It's about intent.
Except*
Thank you brother White. Grace to all in Christ.
Grace to all the elect or to the whole world???
Jerardo SC Fact: John has at least 10 different uses of “world” in his writings.
Question, by world do you mean without exception or without distinction?
theocratickingdom30 List all those 10 different uses.
Matthew 10:28 "I came to give my life as a ransom for many" Many is not all.
Many is those who believe
Really? You need to read the rest of the bible my friend.. Your statement is completely childish n laughable..
Actually both all and many is written so many times throughout the BIBLE. Both are facts so that's not debatable. But to say that Jesus Christ died only for the elect, thats a statement that is not found in the BIBLE, written or otherwise...that's just a theory developed by jhon Calvin even Luther doesn't agree...♥️🤣♥️
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
@Karl Jansen I think your analogy is very helpful for understanding Reformed Theology. When we read the Bible, we take note of prepositions and the scope of "all" in context.
In your example, you write "If there are twelve apples _in a bag_ and I eat *all* the apples _in the bag,.._ " The non-Calvinist then comes around and insists, "ALL MEANS ALL! This passage is saying Karl ate every single apple that ever existed!" And we turn around and point out, "no, "all" has a referent. It isn't all individual apples in existence, it is just the apples in the bag."
Philosopher vs Exegete. The Exegete always wins 🤷🏻♂️
Amen!
Have you seen the debate at RedGrace with Mr. Flowers.
Way too many people forget WLC also holds PhD in Theology :)
The thumbnail tho.
Glorious.
Basically why I watched the video
If I had a dime for every time WLC has used the word “actualized”.
"Pelagius the church father Augustine most opposed" -William Lane Craig
What a goof ball
Craig’s use of the term “potentially” here is not in terms of the scope of Christ’s gracious work on the Cross. It’s another way of saying that you are called to repent and obey Christ’s teachings upon acceptance of the gift of Grace. Without repentance, you can’t say that you’ve accepted the Gift and if you haven’t accepted the gift of God’s grace, you’re not justified. I appreciate White’s concern for possibly limiting Christ’s work on the Cross, but I don’t think that’s what Craig is doing here.
What is so hard to understand about limited atonement? If all won't be saved, particular individuals, elect, etcetc. I feel there is so much emotional garbage reasons to reject limited atonement like the made-up reason that that would mean christ didn't love all people, calvinists don't evangelize, the elect are better people... What is so terrible about this notion about God's sovreignty that if God would prepare vessels for destruction you'd have a problem with that; like you know better than God? Such hubris.
William Lane Craig speaks with a forked tongue.He twists words to suit his own political and religious agenda.Well done Pastor White.
Can you elaborate on what Craig's agenda is exactly?
@@trevorandthegunrunners4166 Spreading the gospel, as does White:)
@@trevorandthegunrunners4166
He’s the one swept up by something.. Craig is not misrepresenting the word in the slightest
White has the best shirts.
Thank you so much 🙏
5:56 "man centered" "not biblical language" is the exactly who you sound.
I say open debate between these two brilliant minds! White vs Craig
Ahemin. i am pretty sure Elder Brother James is up for it. i do not think that Dr. Craig is.
Dr. White has had a standing invitation to debate WLC for years. WLC absolutely refuses to talk to Dr. White, much less debate him. I think it's because WLC knows his worldview is built around philosophy at the core and not the bible.
In exegesis Philosophy is no match for context and Greek Grammer usage.
Craig is an idiot though
@@rsm1161 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
I would pay to watch Mr. White and Dr. Lane debate
They did a debate on theodicy. Well... White immediately went off topic.
@@coreylapinas1000 link?
We all have free will. God has done all the work, but does not force anyone to accept it. He requires us each to receive it.
Prove it from scripture
@@orangez1986 John 1:12, all who received him. John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
Those are not proof texts to the theology that man chooses his eternal destiny instead of God choosing who will accept Christ's atoning work on the cross.Those verses just make the statement that those who have accepted Christ are saved and those that don't aren't.But it does not address the process by which someone comes to accept Christ.It certainly doesn't say that people make the choice to do so.The book of John is not a very good place for Arminians to go to back up their soteriology.Just a few examples: John 6:44 "No one can come to me (Jesus) unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise him up on the last day.", John 6:65 "And he said, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father'"; here is the portion of John 1:12 you quoted in full context John 1:12-13: "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born not of blood, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD."It's God's will that certain people profess faith in Christ...no man's will.I don't know how scripture can be clearer than that.
when Speaking of Calvinism... I am
I deff for predestination.. i believe God is sovereign.. I believe this to be true.. seeing things unfold in my life, in such a undeniable way... that he is in control.. of all things... to sum up...
Although I’ve also came to the conclusion... that if we say we don’t have a “will” or a “way”... then this would be limiting Gods capabilities within his creation...
I believe being sovereign.. but also us having some sort of “way”... is something we can’t fathom... and to act as if we fully understand.. or even are close to understanding... is arrogant.. and it seems at times Dr.White/Calvinism is arrogant in this way..
Of course there is many verses to go to... but I believe one that says it all
Best...
“A man’s goings are from
The Lord, how then can a man understand his own way”
THIS verse says that we have a “way” but we can’t really understand it... are goings are of the Lord... but we do have a way.. we jus can’t really understand it...
So trying to act as if u fully understand “our way” and God sovereignty... is arrogance
Are you lutheran? Genuinely interested
I don't think anyone is arguing that man doesn't have a will. Both Calvinists and arminians agree that we have a will, but the question is whether or not our will is free or if our will is operating based on our fallen nature.
@@jacobgarcia4826 Yup, and even that is somewhat confusing as it mixes philosophical and Biblical categories.
Philosophically speaking, both Calvinists and non-Calvinists like Arminians affirm a theory of free will; but the Calvinist affirms compatibalist free will and the Arminian usually promotes (or says they do anyway) a libertarian theory of free will. Biblically, our will is in bondage,either to Satan and sin or Jesus and righteousness, thus making a libertarian theory seem unbiblical.
@@oracleoftroy Agreed!
I don’t mean to sound condescending but it escapes me why something so obvious does not register with reformed brethren.
It was God’s pleasure to create humans with the freedom to choose or reject salvation. This was not man’s doing in any sense. I didn’t wake up and demand that God endow me with this power. To appeal to reform way of thinking to prove reformed doctrine is completely ineffective and makes it really difficult to take anyone doing so seriously.
Is that supposed to be the molinist view? That doesn't sound like what I hear from that side. AFAICT only potential humans in possible worlds have freedom to act as they want, but after reviewing all the possible worlds, God instantiates the world he desires and now history plays out as the potential humans choose. Actual humans are on that script and can't really deviate unless the particular molinist allows men some amount of room to mess up God's plan and force contingencies.
Meanwhile, everything you describe about man being created free to choose holds up in Reformed theology, and we all chose poorly and reject God's ways, which is why we need God to save us in the first place. Not even the very best of us, Adam still innocent and sinless, chose the way of God, but even he choose rebellion and sin.
I agree, in the true biblical view it’s all about God.
It was GOD’S will and choice not mine to choose to save only those who freely believe.
That’s called GOD-centred.
The only man centred theology here is reformed theology.
I actually couldn’t care less about freewill.
I only care about what the BIBLE SAYS and teaches.
The BIBLE is my authority so whatever it says that’s what I believe.
I don’t tell the Bible what it says I let the bible tell me.
So whatever it tells me that’s what I believe.
That’s called being GOD centred when you rely on SCRIPTURE to define what you believe and not the other way around.
MAN centred theology is when you don’t believe what the Bible says but instead try and tell God what His Word should say.
If the Bible said I had to climb a tree to be saved I’d believe it because scripture is my authority and not a man made systematic.
So when scripture says I must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ I believe it because scripture is my authority and my beliefs are centred on what GOD says and not what man’s systematic says.
*That’s called GOD-CENTERED when you ACCEPT and BELIEVE what His Word says.*
Man-centred is rejecting what His Word says and then interpreting passages to suit your own doctrine rather than listening to Jesus Christ Himself.
God centered is believing it pleases God to save all those who believe.
Man centred theology is trying to tell God no He can only save those whom He causes to believe.
Theology based on the BIBLE is GOD centred.
Reformed theology is based on men telling God what He can and cannot do and re-interpreting and re-inventing words and doctrines and twisting and perverting God’s Word.
Adding to scripture and taking it out of context is called MAN centred.
God centred theology is believing 1 Corinthians 1:21.
How about we let God tell us who He’s chosen to be saved instead of telling Him who we think He’s chosen by saying He’s just chosen random people to be saved before the foundation of the world for no apparent reason.
@@apilkey _"I agree, in the true biblical view it’s all about God. It was GOD’S will and choice not mine to choose to save only those who freely believe. That’s called GOD-centred."_
I'm confused about why you say this is God centered when at the bullseye of salvation is man's choice.
_"I actually couldn’t care less about freewill. I only care about what the BIBLE SAYS and teaches."_
And yet, the Bible says: Rom 9: 16 "So then it depends *not on human will* or exertion, *but on God,* who has mercy." If you don't care about man's will in salvation, why do you place man's will in the center instead of God like Paul does here? Or consider 5: 10 "For if *while we were enemies* we were *reconciled* to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life." If you don't care about human will and want salvation centered on God, why do you preach a reconciliation based on man's free belief instead of a reconciliation initiated by God while we were still enemies like Paul does?
It's amazing you claim to be Bible focused, but the only scripture you reference are not being contested, and you completely ignore the scripture that speaks against your view.
@@apilkey
Yes, my view exactly. Calvinism is a refutation of the very meaning of repentance.
@@oracleoftroy
Wow are you confused.
There is a distinction between paying for something and actually redeeming it. You can pay for something and not redeem it. Jesus paid for the sins of everyone, but you have to be redeemed. Not everyone is redeemed. And of course, I wrote this knowing no one is going to read it.
Lol ....i read it.
But the question needs to be asked "what exactly did Christ purchase on the Cross?"
He purchased the believers redemption. He couldn't have purchased the redemption of those not redeemed or else they'd be redeemed.
Im not sure your caveat of "one must be redeemed" after the purchase is gonna fly in light of what redemption actually means
Learning here … can both be possible? Like you choose something but God knew and elected your decision before you made it? Like if a guy is a Christian his whole life then something happens and he goes completely the other way… was he never a Christian?
Ok so what's the right explanation then? All you did was go on and on about what you saw as the problem with Dr. Craig's answer, but no solution was provided. Won't be watching anymore of these anytime soon.
Calvinist conclusion of double predestination is a major heresy. Please abandon these Antichrist and Satanic doctrines. Ask for forgiveness for preaching this. Not required to have an answer like molinism either. Leave it to mystery. You are a good man. Publicly change your position to mystery. God will forgive you.
Honest question. Do calvinist say we are not involved in being saved? Are we robots in this area? Just trying to understand.
No we're not robots and this is where I have a problem with my fellow reformed brothers. What is synergistic is the new birth not being saved. Now they are as it were, two sides of the same coin.
In all my understanding that’s what they are saying. They’re saying it’s all on God and we have no control whether or not we are the elect. If this is wrong, people like white and other Calvinist apologists are doing a poor job explaining their side.
@@frenchtoast2319 seems to me this exactly what James White is saying. Calvin is their sacred cow.
We are involved. We provide the sin we need saving from. After that point, it is all God. God is the righteous judge that condemns us for our sin, and is the merciful savior that saves us by his grace.
@@oracleoftroy correct, Calvinist believe we are compelled robots
The atonement dose not save anyone. One can not be saved without it but it alone is not what saves. The bible tells us what saves.
Romans 5:10 KJV
[10] For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Titus 3:5 KJV
[5] not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Ephesians 2:5 KJV
[5] even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Really wish you worked more on evangelism rather than quarreling
TBH? I watch these short clips w my Bible in hand reading along and learning.
Karl Krentzel no doubt there is stuff we can learn both from white and form Craig, but this isn’t fruitful for anyone for our own to publicly turn on themselves. These things should be done privately
Stupid sissy hypocrite comment
@@zachlehkyi9951 oh dang I see your point man
@@nopark1273 The Bible isn't silent on these matters, so I think it would be unwise to be silent where the Bible speaks. And "Iron sharpens iron" is a Biblical principle.
White doesn’t want to accept the biblical truth that our faith in a God that provided atonement IS our acceptance! Paul makes it clear that some Israelites in the old covenant could not enter into the atonement provision of that covenant (Yom Kippur) because they refused to believe. Christ carries this understanding over into his own dialogue with the Pharisees. Stephen also sees the Pharisees within the same category of Israelites that are rejecting the provision that God provided. He specifically says that the Pharisees have rejected the will of God for themselves. Craig is right and White is wrong. If we can reject the will of God, then we can accept the will of God, and that is exactly what Craig has said in regards to what Christ has done in establishing the new covenant via atonement.
William Lane Craig really said that the work Jesus did on the cross was potentially finished? Each individual believe has to put in their part by actualizing it through our faith in him?? How is any part of that Biblical?
No he never said that all sounds like you’re twisting his words.
He didn’t say anything about the “work” being potentially finished.
Whatever was meant to be finished at the cross was finished.
Whatever was not meant to be finished at the cross was finished.
Some things were not finished at the cross.
Was our glorification finished at the cross?
..only in the sense of Our 'response' to GOD Working and Willing in Us. Glad Ya see the danger.
i just saw how Todd White (not the Reformer; the old heretic), repent and Trust CHRIST (In HIS Finished Work, alone).
He never said that. Stop making stuff up
Veey Vood, Sister. It is Biblical in the sense that he (Mr. Craig) does in fact see Our response. However, that isn't near the fullness, or even a third of it, of what's goin on. He is man-centered and what is in the heart n mind flows out of the mouth, as You Know, and as It IS Written. YHWH Bless m Keep You, as You hernwatly pray for the Brethren under these false teachings, and even that the 'teaxhers' be Brought Low by GOD, yet In HIS HOLY GRACE Upon Grace.
@5:30 - It's not problematic to divide the will of the Trinity with respect to His disposition to mankind? The Son has a different will for humanity than the Father and His sacrifice changes God's will? In John 3:16, there is clearly some type of contingency of belief - God gives some that belief, but not others?
When there is a covenant or a contract between two people it requires acceptance for both parties. If God's will is for everyone to repent but not everyone does it's not a God problem but an everyone problem (majority)
The High Priest offered up the sacrifice to The Father ... ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE! Jesus, as John the Baptist is noted for saying, is the one sent to "take away the sins of the world", not just Israel, not just the Elect, but of the World.
So every individual is sinless and thus blameless before God? If not, what do you mean?
@@oracleoftroy The Atonement isn't limited to only the Elect as Calvinism teaches. That's what I am saying.
I disagree with White's point ar around 5:45. I don't think man having the choice to accept or not Jesus' atonement for themselves is necessarily man-centered because we are only given that choice by the Father.
Craig vs White amirite ?
Matthew 1v21... 'He WILL save HIS people from their sins'. Not, 'He will POTENTIALLY save ALL people from their sins'.
But how do you distinguish who is HIS, and who isn't? Since not all will be saved
I don't, He does
How does He? I guess you can throw your hands up and say "We can't know". I wouldn't presume to be able to comprehend all of the ways of God either.
@@trevorandthegunrunners4166 yea, God is God... The closest we get to that answer, as far as I can see, is in Ephesians 1v4-5... He chooses for himself and according to His good pleasure.
I guess the same way in which He chose Israel from among the nations.
@@Hideinacave
The term "whosoever will..." comes to mind.
Unfortunately, Dr. White makes a straw man in order to win the argument. I would like to see him make an iron man and face it. Maybe he could win yet. But I didn't see that yet.
Classic Calvinism. They exist in their own little John 3:16 contradicting bubble.
@@ttbministry Apologia’s defense of Calvinism sermon goes through why the Arminian interpretation of John 3:16 does not suggest universal capacity. No bubble here
@@jaxondabeastz2046 I'm not in either of those 2 silly camps. I follow Jesus. Fancy so devoting yourself to a man that you name yourself after a man. I'm not of Paul or Apollos or Peter or Calvin or Arminius (shame on anyone that is & claims to love Jesus & the Word).
@@ttbministry _"I'm not in either of those 2 silly camps. I follow Jesus. Fancy so devoting yourself to a man that you name yourself after a man. I'm not of Paul or Apollos or Peter or Calvin or Arminius (shame on anyone that is & claims to love Jesus & the Word)."_
Is Christ divided? Your attitude is explicitly condemned by Paul in I Cor 1: 12f for being divisive:
"What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or *“I follow Christ.”* Is Christ divided?"
@@oracleoftroy oh boy, how far does the irony extend?
A follower of Calvin, the most divisive arrogant group within Christendom, in a video by a leading Calvinist (being highly divisive & mocking of a non Calvinist) condemning another non Calvinist, for being divisive. Hahahahaha.
Nothing so blind and narrow minded & single minded as a Calvinist defending their god Calvin.
I'll continue serving Jesus & leave you to your Calvinist pit.
I dont still dont see how this is wrong, can someone help
"Christ's death is sufficient for all, but only efficient for the elect."
Nothing wrong with that.
These Calvinist strangely believe there is some "work" involved in receiving a gift. I take no credit in receiving a gift. I take no part in the cost born to give a gift. I just received a gift.
Christ offers the world the gift of eternal life. People chose to accept or reject that gift.
I would rather say "effective" or "of benefit" rather than efficient.
How do Calvinists deal with a Christian who falls to temptation? Was that the will of God?
Genesis 50:20
God predestined your fall to temptation, I agree with peter, Genesis 50:20 is part of it. But Ive never seen a reformer say that "we" dont have a will, just not a libertarian "free" will, God is the only One who has that. Just your actions being predestined in the Bible and your name being in the lambs book before time existed is proof, you don't have libertarian free will but you do have a will. You can chose to follow it, yes you have a virtual choice and its predestined and bad consequences form around those desires. But God is still in control and will pull the elect out of sin.
I’m not Calvinist. My understanding is that God knows what choices we will make and predestination applies to that. Before we are made he knows where our eternity lies. That doesn’t mean we don’t get to make the choices that result in our fate. We do make the choices, God knows what choices we’ll make, and he lets us make them. If salvation was given to everyone and choice wasn’t a factor, those who are saved wouldn’t be appreciative. Love is a choice. You can’t force someone to love you. When a husband and wife have a baby, they do so knowing their child will make wrong choices, potentially horrible, and damning choices, yet the parents still love the child and their heart breaks at the poor choices. When the child makes good choices the parents are filled with joy.
The bible says God doesn't tempt anyone, but he does provide an escape to every temptation. So when calvinists say that God predestined you to fall into temptation but at the same time say that God is not guilty for you falling in temptation, I just lose my mind. Genesis 50 does not say that God predestined Josephs brothers to do the evil that they did, it just says that God use that evil and turned into good, thats it.
The same with isaiah 10, and acts 13.48 and all those verse that calvinist love. They just don't say what calvinist think they say...
@@DimensiondelosSecretos In Genesis 50 it does not say that God merely used the evil and turned it to good but rather that as they meant it for evil, God meant it for good. He had planned this for good before they had even made their choice to do the evil
He’s putting words into Dr Craig’s mouth. He is actually not hearing the point Craig is making, that even in a limited atonement model there must be an appropriation of the atonement in time at the moment one repents and believes that is a different time point from the crucifixion. Typical Calvinistic inability to see that man’s free will does not displace God’s will nor his sovereignty. So giving man free will does not make one’s gospel man centered.
Are the elect saved once Jesus died on the cross?
I don't think so. I am not Calvinist, however, I believe in calvinism, the elect are saved before the foundation of the world. God isn't limited by time and his will and plan, though carried out in time, are considered the first cause of salvation, and the effect is fulfilled in time. This explanation was written with calvinism in mind. Seems kind of complicated. I could be wrong, as I'm not an expert in calvinism although I used to be one
"Salvation" isn't one thing happening at one point in time. It involves the work of God at multiple levels. At the foundation of the earth he predestines a people for salvation, at the cross he pays for their sin, at some point in their lives he calls them and regenerates them and gives them grace to believe, he indwells them with his spirit and works to persevere them throughout the rest of their lives, and on the final judgement he sees Christ's righteousness on them and judges them blameless, glorifies them, and dwells with them forever on a renewed earth. You'll sometimes hear this as the "already, not yet" or that we "were saved, are saved, are being saved, are not yet saved" as that helps remind us that salvation is a process. I didn't even give an exhaustive list of all that God does for us in salvation.
I love you both and really wish you guys could get along 🤣
Why can't people who hold to a man centered soteriology get that their theology diminishes God's power and the power of Christ's work on the cross.If God desires or wills that all people be saved but people are able to reject the will of God by their will then who's got more power?And I really have been shown that upon a straight forward reading of scripture (taking the position that it says what it means and means what it says) taken as a whole and in context reformed theology is ALL there in scripture.Man centered soteriology is not supported at all.Man's will is ALWAYS spoken of as debased and wicked leaving man to not choose for God unless God intervenes and regenerates.
It was the very first sin and the root of all our sin; that we can be like God. So we insert ourselves where only God belongs, and we lower God to our level to close the gap between us.
Is faith a work?
A god who wants to save every individual but can't, is not the God of the Bible, it does not exist. If that god doesn't exist,then that god cannot save anyone.Change my mind.
Dr. Craig is right here.
By redefining the meaning of atonement?? By saying atonement has to be actualized, by those being atoned for ?? So it is not ACTUALLY PROPITIATION ( actual substitutional death - His death instead of another death - making that sinner right with God ) ?? This is not apostolic language.... The scriptures teach that "HE" is the propitiation... Yeshuah's death made it "ACTUALISED".... He didn't and doesn't need our help.... Not now, not ever...
@@richardhislop9928 that’s not what was said. Review what Dr. Craig says.
@@richardhislop9928 it’s like getting a check. The check says $100.00, but you don’t have that $100.00 until you deposit it. It requires that you take the check and deposit it in your account. Only then is that $100.00 dollars yours.
With Jesus’ death, it takes us to believe in him and accept the gift of salvation. Our eternity is a consequence of our choice. We have two options. To be with God or to be without God. He gives us that choice.
It seems to me? Therein lies your fallacy sir. Great rebuttal Pastor White. 😊 congratulations. Hoping one day to watch you preach in Mesa. God willing.
No fallacy there!
@@marekfoolforchrist where?
Making fun of how someone talks doesn’t accomplish anything. Craig is completely correct
@@thetannernation Craig doesn't teach God creates people He hates and hides Himself from them so that they will not come to Him so that He can then torture them for eternity for not believing as He made them to do... Craig just needs to open the Bible up, this is very obvious
@@alexjoneschannel
I’m sorry.. can for form a grammatically coherent sentence? I have no idea what you’re trying to say
Ignorance.
God has always given man a choice. To claim there is no choice in salvation is just plain stupid.
Do slaves of sin have a choice to free themselves? How does one do that in the flesh when Romans 8:7 says that the mind set on the flesh is hostile towards God does not subject itself to God's law neither is it able to.
@@j.d.auwerda4795
Do slaves of sin have a choice to free themselves? They didn't before the Gospel, but they do now since Jesus died on the cross. God alone makes people born again, but God doesn't make choices for people. If God DID make choices for people, then He has ZERO grounds to judge others for HIS actions.
The fallen mind is not hostile to God in the sense that it only seeks after evil, injustice, and lies. Romans 7 and people like King David show that the fallen man is fully capable of desiring what is good, and its fully capable of responding to the Gospel positively because man was made in God's image and is inherently looking for God, albeit unconsciously. You can look at any fallen society on earth and see a desire for goodness and justice. Those people just struggle in how to obtain it. The Gospel shines a light of truth into those societies.
@@michaele5075 Did Lazarus ask Jesus into His heart? Nah bro, Jesus called him specifically, by name, and raised Him from the grave. Jesus didn't ask permission, cuz He's the Lord, we ain't
BTW: there is choice in salvation, it just ain't our choice. God trumps all.. even the almighty free will of man (sarcasm)
Just realize this, most Calvinists will not share their Calvinism to unbelievers. They will go out of their way to make sure to let other Christians know what they believe, but for some reason they don’t want to sound Calvinistic to unbelievers
White wants to believe that God's will is irresistible. Fine. Then he must also hold the view that God takes pleasure in the destruction of the wicked, a clear rejection of biblical doctrine.
Christ's penal substitution on the cross is all sufficient, yet some (or most) perish nonetheless.
Head banging because you don't understand the voluntary nature of repentance is very, very sad.
This is not a cogent presentation of theology, it's a tantrum that leans toward Gnosticism.
_"White wants to believe that God's will is irresistible. Fine. Then he must also hold the view that God takes pleasure in the destruction of the wicked, a clear rejection of biblical doctrine."_
What's the logical connection here? I don't see any. Why can't you allow God to will something to happen while taking no pleasure in it?
_"Christ's penal substitution on the cross is all sufficient, yet some (or most) perish nonetheless."_
Sure, "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" is a common saying among the Reformed. I don't thing that is the problem and White didn't take issue with that aspect of Craig's statement.
_"Head banging because you don't understand the voluntary nature of repentance is very, very sad."_
And what would that be? It sounds like you are saying salvation is based on what we voluntarily do? God is waiting for us to choose to act? Maybe you mean something else though.
_"This is not a cogent presentation of theology, it's a tantrum that leans toward Gnosticism."_
What exactly is Gnostic about it? Is that just a pejorative, or can you make a Christian argument connecting these ideas, or is this just a drive by accusation meant to cause division in Christ's church?
WLC discusses what various factions are saying, however I would like to focus his phrase as regeneration as this word is also called Born Again.
What's really born again or regeneration? Why there's a need for regeneration or born again?
Unfortunately, Christisn leaders like WLC or James White or John McArther etc., never address these questions in the first place, there's a need to be born again b/c of the fact that we or nobody born of God, if so then how did we all born or are we born by whom?
The answer is terrific and that's we were born of satan or sin or sex as these three are one in three. We were born of satan and that's the reason there's a need to be born again or born of God or regenerated.
Now, how is it to be born again?
There's only one way to be born again and that the REMOVAL of Parent's Spirit from the body, and instead the HOLY SPIRIT must be REPLACED into the body.
JESUS explained to Nicodemus in John 3:8. So, anybody go through the process of Born Again then eventually become never Dead Again but become like JESUS and repeat what He did back in 1st century to the 21st century objectively. Unfortunately, Christian leaders, Pastors, Preachers gave received PHD'S but not the Holy Spirit, the irony is that they have no any idea about these biblical phrases but talks cery frequently, and just entertain the society, there's no use of it even if they do for another 100 years or so.
William Lane Craig has TWO.not ONE..but TWO REAL Accredited PHD's...and how many do you have James White??? ZERO!!!
And yet, WLC can’t seem to understand the most simplistic scripture. Yikes
James White was actually working on a second thesis a while ago -- I'm not sure if he has finished yet. The whole 'doctor' title for pastors and apologists is overused and unnecessary anyway. Having two PhDs doesn't prove anything. There are plenty of so-called 'doctors' that believe in KJV-onlyism...probably the most ignorant and illogical position a Christian can hold, short of becoming a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness.
Sounds like he believes Jesus failed 👀 and that faith isn’t given by grace from God. Faith alone by grace alone, narrow is the way and few that enter.
So, does your theology propose that those who perished in the Flood are a testament to God's failure or to the failure of those who perished? By the way, grace alone by faith alone is a concept alien to the Word of God without violation of 2 Peter 1:20, i.e., the selective use of scripture to create a private doctrine.
God's conditions for salvation are clearly stated in the bible:
1. Believe and be baptized (Mark 16:16)
2. Keep the ten commandments (Mark 10:19 / Rom 3:31)
3. Produce fruit (John 15:2 / Matt 25:14-30)
4. Endure until the end (Matt 24:13,48-51)
Reconcile this with John3:16's "WHOSOEVER"
Oh you mean
πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ?
That you think this is a refutation tells me you don't know much about this debate at all. Plus, it says you didn't read the chapter. 🙄
"..Whosoever believes shall not parish."
That's why Jesus died, so that the believing ones will have eternal life.
@@gabrielkinzel3389 which is what Dr. Craig was saying.
@@frenchtoast2319 no, craig says whosoever chooses to believe will be saved. The bible says that those who believe will be saved. To input a free choice on the believer is adding to the scripture.
Arminians fight tooth and nail to defend man's sovereignty, at the expense of God's sovereignty. You fools.
It's Craig again
Do calvinists beleive non-calvinists (aka beleive we are saved by faith through grace but not in predestination ) will be saved ?
If they were predestined, then yes. hehe
Gabriel Kinzel
Does predestination conflict with justice ?
@@DavidTextle No, how would it? Predestination is what satisfies justice, for it is the atoning for sins for specific people, planned before time. God is just, and the justifier. He is in the heavens, He does whatever He pleases (Psalm 115) I could find some verse on predestination and election if you'd like.
Gabriel Kinzel
If God chooses who goes to heaven does that mean he chooses who goes to hell? So if people have the same amount of free will as a rock what’s the point of existing if you’re just gonna love to go to hell ?
Gabriel Kinzel does that make sense ?
In the criminal justice system , a defendants punishment is based on why they had control over. If they are say being mind controlled to kill someone it’s different than if they freely and willingly chose to take that life. With predestination all this goes out the window ,
Read Ephesians chapter 1 and 2 as well as Romans 9 just to name a few and then tell me about soteriology😂
Yep, all of those chapters say clearly that God has elected and predestined those who are IN Christ to eternal life. It doesn't say anything of choosing a specific individual for salvation of damnation. And are we born IN Christ? NOPE
1 John 2:2
New American Standard Bible
2 and He Himself is the [a]propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
there is not universal salvation so it seems by this verse that Mr. Craig is correct. just as at the time in Egypt just before the exodus, The blood had to be applied in order to live!
The whole world in this case, means Jews and gentiles.. Yes, the message is now come to the gentiles... Now every type of man is included, not just the Jews, whom he came to, but rejected him.... Salvation is come to all of the world without distinction , not all of the world without exception... The truth is in the figurative use.
@@richardhislop9928 and yet the blood still must be applied.
@@frenchtoast2319 High priestly intercession is made eternally by the Son on behalf of all those chosen and given by the Father , to the Son.. The Son offered (applied) His blood directly upon the mercy seat, before the thrice time Holiness of God, to effect justice ; the expression of Holy Wrath against innocent death on behalf of another : Propitiation, through this substitutionary atonement, on behalf of His elected brethren, is now perfectly made ; sacrifice for the elect... They are born again by this pre-intamcy...
The gift of faith (belief) is given to these elect brethren, here on earth, to identify them as His sheep.. " He that beleiveth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.".. They hear His voice, and come to him ; because they know His voice, and are known by Him... "Another they will not follow (believe)."
Conversely, "ye do not believe because you are not my sheep..
( "I never knew you." )
@@richardhislop9928 we don’t disagree here. Big words don’t make you right. Anyone who believes is saved. Belief is a choice. A choice given to us by God. Belief is not forced upon us
@@frenchtoast2319 _"and yet the blood still must be applied."_
Not sure what you are implying here. Who applies the blood? The High Priest or us?
_"Anyone who believes is saved. Belief is a choice. A choice given to us by God. Belief is not forced upon us_"
This doesn't say anything contrary to Reformed Theology. Those who are not born again always freely choose to deny God, and those who are born again freely choose God. The difference is God's action to replace their heart of stone with a heart of flesh.
Sir, the gospel is that though we are sinners God HAS IN HIS MERCY MADE PROVISION FOR OUR REDEMPTION.
You make the case that somehow God fails if we dont choose to repent or have faith or that "all of the triune Gods efforts" toward our redemtion hinge on our will and that God's plan's success or failure is determined by man. This is you putting more value on man than you should.
As if God is on the throne hoping we choose to make the right choice cause his plan might fail otherwise.
God has made provision for our redemtion. The deal is that you have to choose to accept it (there are terms of service to this arrangement). If you sign on, great. God is probably, in fact Id go as far as saying certainly pleased when we do. But if you dont, thats kind of on you and though God would rather you sign on, He has made it very clear that sin, and unrighteousness aint gonna fly...at all. You have to choose to repent and you must believe that God, as in GOD THE CREATOR of the universe impregnated a human being with His own precious and divine being and lived with us and was crucified, resurrected and lives today SO THAT mankind, though we be in such a wretched sinful state might still be justified before A GOD THAT IS BOTH PERFECTLY JUST AND PERFECTLY MERCIFUL.
Seriously, when you keep these two phrases at the forefront of your mind, it is very easy to see that God is willing, but not biting his nails over lost souls. A perfectly just God WOULD NEVER ALLOW A SINGLE SIN TO GO UNACCOUNTED.
A perfectly merciful God WOULD MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR CREATURES TO BE REDEEMED EVEN WHEN THEY ON THEIR OWN COULD NEVER JUSTIFY THEMSELVES before a holy God.
He made a hell because some people not being redeemed was part of the plan all along.
Thats the deal.
Biblical exegesis by Dr. Craig For The Win.
The only man centred theology here is reformed theology.
I actually couldn’t care less about freewill.
I only care about what the BIBLE SAYS and teaches.
The BIBLE is my authority so whatever it says that’s what I believe.
I don’t tell the Bible what it says I let the bible tell me.
So whatever it tells me that’s what I believe.
That’s called being GOD centred when you rely on SCRIPTURE to define what you believe and not the other way around.
MAN centred theology is when you don’t believe what the Bible says but instead try and tell God what His Word should say.
If the Bible said I had to climb a tree to be saved I’d believe it because scripture is my authority and not a man made systematic.
So when scripture says I must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ I believe it because scripture is my authority and my beliefs are centred on what GOD says and not what man’s systematic says.
*That’s called GOD-CENTERED when you ACCEPT and BELIEVE what His Word says.*
Man-centred is rejecting what His Word says and then interpreting passages to suit your own doctrine rather than listening to Jesus Christ Himself.
God centered is believing it pleases God to save all those who believe.
Man centred theology is trying to tell God no He can only save those whom He causes to believe.
Theology based on the BIBLE is GOD centred.
Reformed theology is based on men telling God what He can and cannot do and re-interpreting and re-inventing words and doctrines and twisting and perverting God’s Word.
Adding to scripture and taking it out of context is called MAN centred.
God centred theology is believing 1 Corinthians 1:21.
How about we let God tell us who He’s chosen to be saved instead of telling Him who we think He’s chosen by saying He’s just chosen random people to be saved before the foundation of the world for no apparent reason.
_"I agree, in the true biblical view it’s all about God. It was GOD’S will and choice not mine to choose to save only those who freely believe. That’s called GOD-centred."_
I'm confused about why you say this is God centered when at the bullseye of salvation is man's choice.
_"I actually couldn’t care less about freewill. I only care about what the BIBLE SAYS and teaches."_
And yet, the Bible says: Rom 9: 16 "So then it depends *not on human will* or exertion, *but on God,* who has mercy." If you don't care about man's will in salvation, why do you place man's will in the center instead of God like Paul does here? Or consider 5: 10 "For if *while we were enemies* we were *reconciled* to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life." If you don't care about human will and want salvation centered on God, why do you preach a reconciliation based on man's free belief instead of a reconciliation initiated by God while we were still enemies like Paul does?
It's amazing you claim to be Bible focused, but the only scripture you reference are not being contested, and you completely ignore the scripture that speaks against your view.
oracleoftroy You’re making no sense I clearly said it’s God’s choice and yet you’re still claiming I believe the opposite.
The bullseye is God’s choice to save anyone who freely believes.
Christ is at the centre not man.
Not quite sure what Romans 9:16 has to do with anything.
Where is the word salvation in that verse?
God chose Jacob over Esau to be the chosen lineage of Christ and represent the nation of Israel that God used to bring salvation to the entire world.
Not of him that wills or runs is not talking about an individual willing his own salvation.
That passage is also in direct reference to Paul quoting Moses in Exodus 33:9 where God chose to have mercy by not destroying all the Israelites after building the golden calf.
He saved them PHYSICALLY by not destroying them.
Not exactly sure what having mercy on someone physically has to do with individual salvation either.
@@apilkey Yet, you provided no exegesis in any of your responses. Scripture vehemently disagrees. You say man "freely" believes. How so? Who is going to believe? Romans 3:11 says there is no God seeker. So who seeks after God apart from God first drawing them? Men are dead in trespasses and sin. And only Christ brings them back to life. To make the Sovereign God dependent on mans will for cooperation ks ludicrous. The God of the Bible does whatever he pleases. Reform Theology gets it's Biblical theology from the Scriptures hense Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone.
J.D. Auwerda 🔴 You’re clearly indoctrinated.
No one here is arguing that mankind isn’t dead in sins and that Christ doesn’t make us alive.
And yet you stating that as if I don’t believe that is just highlighting your ignorance.
And who is saying the Sovereign God is dependant on man to cooperate?
Sounds like you’re projecting phantom arguments that noone here is claiming.
And again no one here is arguing that the God of the Bible doesn’t do all that He pleases.
The problem is that you like to tell God what He needs to do whereas I actually truly believe that statement.
In your view God is only allowed to do all that He pleases if it fits in your tiny little man made box that you confine Him to.
If it doesn’t fit your religion then God is not allowed to do it.
Scripture is vehemently against reformed theology.
You referenced Romans 3:11 saying no one seeks God.
**NEWS FLASH** God sought US.
He sent His Son, it’s time for you to wake up.
What more do you want?
Was sending Jesus Christ to SEEK and save the most not good enough?
J.D. Auwerda If you’re making the statement that you get your theology from scripture alone then please provide a scripture verse that says fallen man does not have the ability to respond to God’s Divine Initiative and first step towards Him.
Why does he always sound snarky/angry? I've watched other videos and it seems the similar tone is almost always there. Not Christian-like at all. I'm fine with disagreements, it's the tone that I question.
For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed- God is witness.
1 Thessalonians 2:5
@@sleez7772 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. Ephesians 4:15-16. See? I can quote scripture too!
@KTTGHMTJWYCBLAC Wow. What a douchebag. I'm sure you've never complained about anything.
@@happybutter19 Judge not least you be Judged. I do think White tends to hold up a mirror so that the proud and arrogant see themselves and project it onto White. I've never seen someone actually explain why they see White this way, but it always seems to be from people who can't answer White Biblically, so they attack his character.
Lol) -"guess who's back"
Yikes! Craig: Arminian and the confusion of Justification and Sanctification and “Potentially” saving no one 😱 Where do you sign up for some of that? 🤦♂️
So according to Craig, Christ didn't ACTUALLY ATONE for sin but his death was only a potential atonement.
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge ok then that's a contradiction. An atonement actually does something. All atonement accomplishes it's purpose. The application of the atonement is APPLIED to the ones for whom it is made.
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge you're correct in your assessment of what an atonement does and in the old and new testament usage. But in either case it does accomplish something. Those for whom it is made are directly affected by it. So if Christ made atonement for someone it not possible that that atonement to not be applied to the one for whom it's was made. If Christ made payment to God on your behalf for a debt owed by you, can God then collect payment from you for the debt that's already been paid?
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge but you're introducing an unbiblical concept by saying that only the sin of rejection of christ is not paid for. That's called unbelief and not believing christ in christ means that you reject everything he says offers or has done.
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge ok but you see the problem with the argument tho. Rejection of christ isn't partial but total according to scripture. So one cannot reject the salvation provided by him but accept forgiveness for everything else
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge I understand the Armenian position but it's untenable and unbiblical. That's what I am arguing.
Well now there is a book
I love Craig for his amazing apologetic material and philosophy, but when it comes to the deeper biblical theology, I find him to be lacking.
Jesus did not die for anyone. Saul the fraud made it all up. Proof is in Ezekiel 18:
5 If a man is righteous and does what is lawful and right- 6 if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman during her menstrual period, 7 does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, 8 does not take advance or accrued interest, withholds his hand from iniquity, executes true justice between contending parties, 9 follows my statutes, and is careful to observe my ordinances, acting faithfully *such a one is righteous; he shall surely live, says the Lord God.*
White has 30 years of ministry...and yet he cannot HONESTLY tell one single Human Being....that Jesus Loves them!
Interesting point
Very sad indeed.
That's not true. We have every reason to proclaim _to the church_ as the apostles did that Christ loves his people. What we won't do is the unbiblical strategy that some use where they tell people for whom the Bible says God is storing up wrath for them that instead God loves them. Instead, we'd rather call people in the way Jesus and the apostles did: e.g. "God commands all people everywhere to repent" (Acts 17: 30).
@@oracleoftroy oh the skillful manipulation of words that Calvinist use (may even be unrealised). Not "his people" but any person (it is implied randomly chosen - including someone that isn't elect)
@@ttbministry Why put what seems right in your own eyes above what the Bible teaches? Where does the Bible tell us to give a blanket call of Jesus loves you" to the world? I see plenty of verses that say God hates both sin and sinners, but not this humanist invention. Mock all you want, I will only repent if you can correct me from the Bible. The only examples you will find are directed at the church, not everyone, which is why you turn to ridicule and not to your Bible.
Craig is not an arminian.
This so-called greatest-apologist-of-all-time wastes time discussing this nonsense??!?? No wonder there are so many non-believers!!! Sheesh!!
After I left the Jehovah’s Witnesses it was Dr. White who reintroduced me to God with the right and correct doctrine. It was then I could see my triune God and love Him for being the amazing God that He is.
apologists make miserable theologians
Are you referring to white or Craig?