Reviewing Reasonable Faith’s Comments
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 дек 2021
- Recently Kevin Harris led William Lane Craig through a brief review of our discussion on Calvinism and Molinism on the Reasonable Faith podcast. It presented a great opportunity to highlight once again not only plethora of strawmen being burned with Molinist matches on the Internet these days.
[Dear molinists, this clip is a shorten version of what Dr. White said, so if you plan you 'refute' him, please watch the full program, as to avoid ignorance. TY.]
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.com/solo/aomi... for more of A&O ministry's content.
#philosophy #source #react #choice #freedom #origination #theology #review #reaction #response #talk #debate #video
If I may add to this conversation between Molinism and Calvinism (this isn't endorsed James White).
If God can determine what is feasible, for example, the least amount of evil, then wouldn't God be just as guilty as (certain) Molinists view Calvinism to be? Because determinations of the least amount of evil, the most people saved, etc. are all worlds where evil is never actuated, while humans still have the potentiality to do evil (if the conditions permit it).
You might reject this stating 'that's not freedom because there's no potentiality', however, that's the required if there are limitations/determinations of the true subjunctive conditionals, plus, with middle knowledge, since God actuated a world where a person does evil, this person has no choice but commit it. And is it really a choice of evil if it was done by ignorance? Univeralists are going to love this question.
Arguably this makes the molinists' view of evil worse then calvinism, because the latter believes that man is by nature/default dead in sin (that's to say 'evil', and not just separated via status from God), where in philosophy, man is morally neutral until proven otherwise (even if man has an inclination to do righteousness or evil).
What's the Christian's answer for evil and suffering? Read John 15:1-17, emphasis in v. 13.
The same axiomatic appetite that brought about the ontological, consistent, and teleological properties of creation (and recreation of the believer) from the uncaused cause is the axiomatic appetite that permits death, suffering, and maybe even the incarnation (since God would be doing this act), so to accomplish God's greatest expression of love through sacrifice -because that's required for it to occur-.
I used to be a MASSIVE Craig fan .. before White helped OPEN MY MIND and ENLIGHTEN IT with the wondrous beauty of the Biblical reformed doctrines- when properly understood. Now I CANT STAND Craig and his anti biblical, Catholic theologian loving, pompous arrogant attitude, and worship of false pagan philosophies. Bill is so condescending when he speaks, and doesn’t have the goods to back up his false beliefs, which is why he’s been shirking White for 15+ years now. Pathetic & sad.
Finally, someone calls out that philosophical fiction of possible worlds. It's just extravagant speculation coming from the 1960's based on Leibniz's theodicy.
I know what you mean. Isn’t more of a fancy way of saying different scenarios?
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews It's exactly that, but with the further commitment to the existence of those scenarios. World-possibilists say that these possible worlds are the truth-makers of modal sentences, such as "It is possible for John to have been exiled in the Island of Patmos". What makes this sentence true is the existence of at least one possible world where this event is the case.
@@outerspection7321 I see. But they aren’t affirming that those worlds actually exist, are they? (I don’t know much about philosophy)
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews They are. If possible worlds didn't exist they couldn't be truth-makers -- i.e. there must something real (existent) described by true propositions. You have various theories of Possible Worlds. The biggest two are Concretism and Abstractism. The former states that possible worlds are just as real as our world; the latter states that they are like numbers and geometric forms: they are abstract objects.
It's amazing the lengths men go to to deny their Creator. They'll look for every theory under the sun before accepting Scripture.
I can establish timelessness from Psalm 90. It's plain ignorant for Craig to assume that Reformed theologians had to borrow this idea from Aquinas.
Cliff McManis of Creekside Bible Church, California, on a hermeneutics video discussing Liberal theology, had William Lane Craig (WLC) as a professor at Biola University, during the middle 1980’s. He was anti-Calvinist, pushing Middle Knowledge and his version of theistic evolution then. Cliff McManis considers WLC a liberal in part because of his trying to find natural causes to explain away all the miracles.
My opinion is that WLC didn’t respect James Whites position at all, completely discounting it. WLC is willing to let his acolytes do the dirty work of the post-debate verbal hammering of James White, Why doesn’t WLC request another debate instead of playing victim on another's podcast?
I respect James White because he shows respect to his debating opponent by studying his opponent’s views. Then he comes straight, saying why he doesn’t agree, always referencing the Bible. On the other hand, WLC has aa philosophical empire he has been building over the years. He will not endanger it. He’ll play the games. I don’t think this is a word, but WLC is a philosotician.
same
Yeah. Honestly I'm a bit shocked as I would have expected a man with his reputation as a philosopher to be much more careful in his argumentation. Yet he turns to the same worn out strawman arguments and anti-Calvinist assumptions of what our position must believe that all the village anti-Calvinists trod out even though we spell out our beliefs in our confessions quite plainly.
I was outright appalled when WLC ignorantly claimed that the Reformed teach God is the primary cause of sin. His lackeys love pointing out that he has a PhD in theology, and yet apparently he never once read the Westminster Confession during his studies? Or does he know better and was just lying? Or is he really just that dense?
To this day, Jerry Walls remains my favorite non-Calvinist philosopher. He actually seems to have a good grasp on the issues as well at the integrity to represent Calvinism using our own confessions. He's the only guy opposed to my system that I can actually 'Amen!' when he describes my beliefs that I've encountered. Everyone else just spreads lies and misinformation and utterly fails to show love for Jesus through obeying his commandment to bring two or three witnesses when making accusations.
After learning about those such as Karl Barth, Spinoza, and Von Harnack it seems to me that WLC is very much in line with this liberal theology tradition. When you put philosophy above theology, as it is unquestionable that WLC does, then you are at risk of a liberal outlook.
Christians throughout history have loved and marveled at the Bible's teaching of what we call, the trinity.
I have often wondered if I would have (on my own) described it so succinctly after reading and outlining the Old and New Testaments. I am glad that folks like James White write well on the subject.
Thank you for calling Orthodox Catholics “Christians” hahah
The best that the defenders of Molinism can say about their system is that "Well, there is nothing in the Bible that DISPROVES it" (which I believe isn't true, but that's another thought). However, if it WERE true, you would instead see far more positive assertion. But like any other false belief system, it relies too heavily on a relatively few passages that are typically misunderstood. The complete testimony of the Word does not align with this philosophy created by Molina.
Like any other false system, Calvinism relies too heavily on a relatively few passages that are misunderstood. The complete testimony of the Word does not align with the philosophy created by John Calvin.
@@jameshayes211 Good thing John Calvin isn't the definer of Reformed Theology then. I know this point endlessly confuses anti-Calvinists, but just because opponents named the system after him and as an accident of history the name stuck, does not mean that Reformed Theology hangs on every thought word or deed of Calvin. The ideas go back long before Calvin and were refined long after Calvin.
@@oracleoftroyNo, I'm not confused. I understand that many unbiblical Calvinist ideas antedate Calvin. The Qur'an teaches Calvin's concept of divine determinism.
@@jameshayes211 Btw, Muslims are theists, so I guess you are about to become an atheist now? You wouldn't want any overlap with scary Muslims, would you? Islam is a Christian cult in many ways so it shouldn't surprise anyone that they overlap strongly at points.
Using vague words like "determinism" to lump two vary different systems is an old atheist trick to make two religions look more similar than they really are. Is Christianity also a Mithras or Horos cult in your mind? If not, you might better appreciate that there are many many different ways a system can be deterministic and still be very different from other deterministic systems. And those details matter a lot to anyone who cares for honest discussion.
And aren't Molinists are supposed to be into philosophy? Yet they all act like they failed there 101 class and just repeat "Calvinism is determinism" like an NPC who exhausted their dialogue and seem to think they are adding something meaningful. What would be more interesting is if you shows that our confessions and the Qur'an have the exact same sort of determinism. But then again, who cares? If the Bible teaches it, who cares how later cults twisted the teaching of the Bible? It's a complete red herring.
@@oracleoftroy No, my point is not that if Islam teaches a given doctrine it must be false---that would be a fallacious argument. Rather, I was conceding your point that a number of Calvinist ideas antedate Calvin. The Islamic understanding of how God exercises His sovereignty is identical to Calvin's (see Surah 11:119 and Surah 57:22).
If, on the Calvinist view, God has determined every contingency, why would "determinism" be a misleading qualifier?
Where is the link to the video being reviewed???
I think the Unbelievable episode and this video finally cleared up some of the issues with Molinism. The middle-knowledge problem is becoming clearer for me, but it was in one thing you said toward the end of the show, when Dr. Craig claimed that Calvinism made God the author of evil, and you said "no, he's the restrainer of evil." That's when it clicked for me. Molinism seems to claim that human beings are capable of making good and bad choices, and all God has to do is make the right person so as to gain the outcomes necessary for the world that God intends to create. So it fundamentally denies the sinfulness of man, and turns sin into bad choices. How is it true that "There is no one good, no not one" if man might have chosen differently if God would have created a different person?
What do you think? Do I have that right?
With Calvinism all things ultimately work for God's glory and for the good of those who believe in Him. With Molonism God is not in complete control. They're obsessed with man's freedom. They think God doesn't violate the will of free creatures when that's not what Scripture teaches. We are going through Genesis at my church and recently we covered the story of Abraham selling Sarah to Abimilech. In Genesis 20 God visits Abimelech in a dream and threatens him. When Abim. responds that he didn't sleep with Sarah, God essentially replies I know because I didn't let you. God doesn't need our permission for anything.
@@firingallcylinders2949 Amen!
Dr. Craig isn't being as even-handed as he ought to be when he criticizes Dr. White for crossing the bounds of the debate topic by critiquing Molinism. Dr. Craig did the same thing with Reformed Soteriology: By arguing that it makes God morally responsible for evil, he was assessing the very veracity of Reformed Theology. Calvinist doctrine does not include God being morally responsible for evil - it teaches just the opposite. I certainly understand that Dr. Craig would contend that it logically entails God's culpability for evil, but for an opponent to argue what they believe calvinism logically necessitates, over and against the claims and teachings of calvinists themselves, is a critique of the truth of calvinism... and if the insistence is going to be that we compare these theodicies on the initial presumption that each is true, then, then just White must not challenge molonism, then he ought not be challenging calvinism. Rather, his comparison must start from the assumption that calvinism, including it's position that the particulars of how God's holiness and man's responsibility is harmonized is not among things revealed, must be assumed.
Frankly, I think it's a fool's errand to try to have this discussion while marking the question of the veracity of the system's as out of bounds. But if Dr. Craig is going to insist on it, then he should have played by those rules, too.
But wouldn’t God authoring evil be directly relevant to the debate topic?
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews So too would the complete lack of grounding for any truth-maker on Molinism that could provide an objective foundation to morality. Personally, I don't think either of them went outside of the stated discussion parameter.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Well, we first must be specific about what we're talking about here. The "authoring" bit has been used imprecisely in order to refer to different things. The less specific that charge is, the less helpful and enlightening it is. What we're talking about here is whether or not God is moral responsible/culpable for evil. Not just "authoring" in the sense of a decree, which is a distinct element.
Now, if whether or not it's relevant turns on what the debate topic supposedly was. If the debate topic is as Dr. Craig says it was ... namely, that we are assuming both systems, in turn, **to be true,** and **then,** in light of that assumption, making a comparative assessment of their respective theodicies, then obviously, you must include the analysis that calvinism is true . . . meaning that God is not morally culpable for evil (since this is what calvinism posits,) but yet that he decrees it (which it also posits), **and** that the particulars of how the two mesh is a mystery not revealed in Scripture (which calvinism also posits). One must assume all these things, **otherwise**, they are not comparing which system **if true** has the better theodicy. Rather, they would be assessing whether Molinism, if true, has a better theodicy than calvinism, **as assessed as false** by the molinist perspective. That's entirely unbalanced and does not adhere to the standard Craig is insisting upon.
But, like I said earlier, I think it's problematic to pretend to exclude an assessment of the veracity of each system (i.e. "assuming as true") before comparing them. I think moving from the ground up, and not from the end point of concluding the truth of each, yields a fuller analysis. With all due respect to Dr. Craig, whom I greatly appreciate and respect and have learned from, I think there's an attempt here (albeit it maybe unintentional) to truncate or limit the assessment of the Reformed perspective in a way that he's not doing for molonism. With Molonism, he wants to assume it's true, then argue calvinism is false, then compare the results.
I do take objections to Reformed soteriology seriously. These are weighty, meaningful, and genuinely difficult matters. But this approach begs the question and stacks the deck.
Cheers!
This every possible world thing...just sounds like a christinaized multiverse theory .
Yeah. Pual called it vain imaginings. Doctrines of Demons. If you think about it, if humans have free will, it robs them of grace because grace is the ability to participate in God's will. When we yield our will to God to do his will, it goes against our nature. Only by the gift of grace by faith can we crucify the flesh.
Would it be impossible for God, who is omniscient, to imagine a world that He chooses not to actualize?
@@jameshayes211 There are things God can't do for example he cant violate his own character. We are already living in his reality and he planned this reality for his own good pleasure. Any speculation as to the contrary is what is called blasphemy.
@@jameshayes211 ofcourse not...but it's all fictitious to get to the point of this world..
Just like multiverse theory is fictitious to get to the point of a universe so perfectly balanced for life.. without the need for a creator..
The every possible world thing is clearly trying to get to the point of God being responsible for some things...but not these things.. because that makes God look bad...
It's starting fr an endpoint ideology and trying to work backwards to find something that fits the end point..as opposed to starting from the beginning working through to get to the conclusion.
@@dominiondefender4009 So your answer is No, God can't imagine a possible world?
What is Paul telling us when he says: "See that there be no one who shall lead you away as a prey through philosophy and vain deceit, according to the teaching of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ."? (Col 2:8) It is the only direct comment on human philosophy in all of Holy Scripture. It seems to me that Holy Scripture simply warns against it and dismisses it to never be brought up again. Notice how Paul defines philosophy. It is according to the "teaching of men". That is, it is according to the nature of man. We also know what Paul thinks of natural man (1 Cor 2:14). "According to the elements of the world." This rather than "not of this world". And ending with "not according to Christ". It is not according to the "mind of Christ." (1 Cor 2:16).
Why does James White cite Calvin who precedes the Post Reformational period discussed by Muller as an example for how theology should be “purified” of philosophical categories? Does he suppose to know better than the many learned men within the collective Reformed tradition who thought that these categories were apt for doing theology? There is a further irony, since Calvin’s theory of the soul and his doctrine of the Lord’s supper are thoroughly Platonic concepts. In the former, Calvin acknowledges the tripartite conception of the soul articulated in Plato’s Republic and in the latter, Calvin argues for the ascent of the soul through a spiritual feeding on the heavenly body and blood of Christ mirroring the Platonic concept of ‘theoria.’
Furthermore, this foolish undertaking would have disastrous results for both an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and Christology, which both hinge upon very precise philosophical categories derived from Classical Greek philosophy that have been Christianised and have therefore become essential to the Christian faith.
Any suggestion to the contrary is to side with Von Harnack who argued for a return to some purified form of 1st century Christianity without any Hellenic elements, now in White’s context, I don’t see how this would result in anything less than the promotion of an intellectually destitute fundamentalist approach to Christian doctrine.
6. The soul and its faculties
It would be foolish to seek a definition of “soul” from the philosophers. Of them hardly one, except Plato, has rightly affirmed its immortal substance. Indeed, other Socratics also touch upon it, but in a way that shows how nobody teaches clearly a thing of which he has not been persuaded. Hence Plato’s opinion is more correct, because he considers the image of God in the soul. 17 Others so attach the soul’s powers and faculties to the present life that they leave nothing to it outside the body.
18 Indeed, from Scripture we have already taught that the soul is an incorporeal substance; 19 now we must add that, although properly it is not spatially limited, still, set in the body, it dwells there as in a house; not only that it may animate all its parts and render its organs fit and useful for their actions, but also that it may hold the first place in ruling man’s life, not alone with respect to the duties of his earthly life, but at the same time to arouse him to honor God. Even though in man’s corruption this last point is not clearly perceived, yet some vestige remains imprinted in his very vices. For whence comes such concern to men about their good name but from shame? And whence comes shame but from regard for what is honorable? The beginning and cause of this is that they understand themselves to have been born to cultivate righteousness, in which the seed of religion is enclosed. But, without controversy, just as man was made for meditation upon the heavenly life, 20 so it is certain that the knowledge of it was engraved upon his soul. And if human happiness, whose perfection it is to be united with God, were hidden from man, he would in fact be bereft of the principal use of his understanding. Thus, also, the chief activity of the soul is to aspire thither. Hence the more anyone endeavors to approach to God, the more he proves himself endowed with reason.
We ought to repudiate those persons who would affirm more than one soul in man, that is, a sensitive and a rational soul, 21 because there is nothing firm in their reasonings, even though they seem to be asserting something probable, unless we want to torture ourselves in trivial and useless matters. They say that there is great disagreement between organic motions and the soul’s rational part. As if reason itself did not also disagree with itself and were not at cross-purposes with itself, just like armies at war. But since this disturbance arises out of depravity of nature, it is wrong to conclude from this that there are two souls, just because the faculties do not agree among themselves in befitting proportion.
e(b)But I leave it to the philosophers to discuss these faculties in their subtle way. For the upbuilding of godliness a simple definition will be enough for us. eI, indeed, agree that the things they teach are true, not only enjoyable, but also profitable to learn, and skillfully assembled by them. And I do not forbid those who are desirous of learning to study them. Therefore bI admit in the first place that there are five senses, which Plato preferred to call organs, by which all objects are presented to common sense, as a sort of receptacle.22 There follows fantasy, which distinguishes those things which have been apprehended by common sense; then reason, which embraces universal judgment; finally understanding, which in intent and quiet study contemplates what reason discursively ponders. Similarly, to understanding, reason, and fantasy (the three cognitive faculties of the soul) correspond three appetitive faculties: will, whose functions consist in striving after what understanding and reason present; the capacity for anger, which seizes upon what is offered to it by reason and fantasy; the capacity to desire inordinately, which apprehends what is set before it by fantasy and sense.
23 Although these things are true, or at least are probable, yet since I fear that they may involve us in their own obscurity rather than help us, I think they ought to be passed over. I shall not strongly oppose anyone who wants to classify the powers of the soul in some other way: to call one appetitive, which, even though without reason, if directed elsewhere, yet obeys reason; to call the other intellective, which is through itself participant in reason. Nor would I refute the view that there are three principles of action: sense, understanding, appetite.
But let us rather choose a division within the capacity of all, which cannot be successfully sought from the philosophers. For they, while they want to speak with utter simplicity, divide the soul into appetite and understanding, but make both double. They say the latter is sometimes contemplative because, content with knowledge alone, it has no active motion (a thing that Cicero thought to be designated by the term “genius”); 24 sometimes practical because by the apprehension of good or evil it variously moves the will. In this division is included the knowledge of how to live well and justly. The former part (I mean the appetitive) they also divide, into will and concupiscence; and as often as appetite, which they call βούλησις, obeys reason, it is ὁρμή; but it becomes πάθος when the appetite, having thrown off the yoke of reason, rushes off to intemperance. 25 Thus they always imagine reason in man as that faculty whereby he may govern himself aright.
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 192-194.
The Institutes are replete with allusions to Plato, the vast majority of them treat him favorably. He is Calvin's favourite philosopher, alongside Seneca.
2. Longing for union with God as motive for the hope of resurrection
The ancient philosophers anxiously discussed the sovereign good, and even contended among themselves over it. Yet none but Plato recognized man’s highest good as union with God,2 and he could not even dimly sense its nature. And no wonder, for he had learned nothing of the sacred bond of that union. Even on this earthly pilgrimage we know the sole and perfect happiness; but this happiness kindles our hearts more and more each day to desire it, until the full fruition of it shall satisfy us. Accordingly, I said that they alone receive the fruit of Christ’s benefits who raise their minds to the resurrection.3 So it is that Paul holds out to believers this goal [Phil. 3:8], to which he says he strives, forgetting all things [Phil. 3:13] until he attains it. We also ought to strive toward it the more eagerly, lest, if the world lay hold on us, we be grievously punished for our sloth. Accordingly, in another place he distinguishes believers by this mark, that their “conversation is in heaven,” whence also they “await their Savior” [Phil. 3:20].
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 988-989.
Craig hugely overestimates his understanding of theology. He doesn't have a consistent approach to systematic theology and it makes me cringe to hear him refer to himself as a theologian. He barely has an orthodox view of scripture and inerrancy. His good work in apologetics is undermined by his approach to God's word. His discussion or "exegesis" of Romans 9 was a complete joke.
"Always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks for the hope that is in you" does presuppose that we should have some understanding of our opponents positions. There is plenty of logic and philosophy in God's word and this God breathed and revealed wisdom is much higher than the best of man made philosophies.
What evidence can any of you share that your favorite minister or ministry has read The scriptures through and through?
GOD is light and in Him is no darkness at all . Mr. Craig is a mad man, and I appreciate your service in God's army Mr. White, thank you...
I'm very disappointed with how arrogant Dr. Craig sounds here.
William Lane Craig should be excommunicated for saying the Holy Trinity is like Cerberus
why not? trinity is a hydra dragon! cerberus! all of that!,trinity is fake,John 3:17 Father Is THE ONLY (Yes! ONLY!) True God
@@ManlyServant read John 17:5 how can a mere man have the same exact glory as the father had since eternity?
>Implying modern day protestants exercise proper church discipline...
When was the last time you saw someone excommunicated?
@@ManlyServant you clearly don't understand the trinity doctrine... because you're assuming more than one God
Here's the questions you need to answer
Is Jesus God
Is Jesus the Father
Is the Holy Spirit God
Is the Holy Spirit the Father or the Son
All of the answers to these questions are clearly in the bible...if you answer these biblically .. you're a trinitarian.
@@86lanzo Very succint (and true)!
That middle knowledge stuff is indeed very strange...
these men are deluded
Says Mr. Hondo, with the Superman eyes...... Pfffft...
Philosophy -- the study of wisdom. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.
Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit
based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ. (Colossians 2:8)
Exactly. It annoys me when people use the Col 2: 8 passage as if it is saying all philosophy is bad. No, but our philosophy must be rooted in God and what he has revealed about himself in his word. It cannot have its root in man and what seems right in our own eyes and only go to the scripture as an afterthought to see if we can twist God's Word to fit our ideas.
Is Dr White dressing up as a bishop/cardinal?
Dr White is the Protestant Pope 😎😂
@@Arabian_Epileptic LOL
His wife often critiques his wardrobe, but he also makes some of his own wardrobe decisions.
Don't be amazed they can't because Gid decreed that they can't lol
Craig’s criticism that you approach the scripture with a pre-decided philosophy completely contradicts what he said during the debate. He made it plain that he believes neither Molinism nor Calvinism is derived from the Bible and that both are frameworks for approaching and understanding the text…
Speaking truth through Philosophy is like a toddler speaking baby talk. 👶 Spiritually mature Christians know the deep things of God are revealed in Scripture. Submit your mind to His Word. God is big enough to defend Himself from man's accusations. Defending a man centered Theology is a fools errand.