Molinism vs. Calvinism: The Problem of Evil - William Lane Craig & James White

[@marioduenasmusic]

Beautiful in-house discussion about God’s sovereignty and human’s free will. Bottom line: James perspective requires determinism as a necessary condition for understanding Scripture, failing to recognize that such is a philosophical presupposition; while Bill is fully aware of this and successfully addresses such as a philosophical device for theological modeling.

[@Wonderful.wander]

Don't let anyone deceive you with worldly philosophy.

[@apologiajosecarlos]

2 giants in theology and apologetics. Thank you for posting this debate.

[@J42337]

I think that James has an issue with understanding that Bill's perspective is that it IS God's will to to allow human freedom to prosper. In understanding this, it isn't difficult to understand the scriptural evidence of Bill's argument. Every passage quoted then, in fact, supports a Molinistic view rather than a Calvinistic view unless one believes that God essentially makes people do evil....and then punishes them for it... which I don't think any serious Christian believes. It also has to be said that James's desire then to find an origin for counterfactual truths flies in the face of metaphysics... Bill's position is not that God is directed by some truth that he didn't create... rather it is God that created human free will. Human free will IS the essence of James White that existed before James White existed. Of course, he had no access to free will until the decree was made to create him, but free will existed logically prior to any decision that James White ever made and thus, on Molinism, God used that knowledge of free will to create the circumstances that allow him to have divine sovereignty and yet righteously punish those who sin. It really is genius, I think.

[@bstringer003]

It’s amazing how Dr. Craig respectfully explains the Molinist theory in a simple way which clearly shows God is not the author of sin and evil, and yet still has ultimately control on what will happen in all situations. Meanwhile, Mr. White talks in circles and never actually explains in his view (Calvinism), how God is in charge of every action we do, including evil, but yet God is not responsible for that evil. It seems so obviously out of sync with what scripture teaches, which is to say God is just, loving, sovereign, and omniscient…and Molinism allows for all of these in a much more plausible way I think.

[@georgemoncayo8313]

Jesus did not die for every single person ever and Jesus didn't die to make people savable. He died to save his elect. In John 17:9 Jesus said that he does not pray for the world. The word world is used in different contexts, in that context he's talking about the non elect. In John 3:16 world means that he purchased people from every tribe, tongue and nation Rev 5:9 and for the children of God scattered abroad John 11:52. Some have been "long beforehand marked out for condemnation" Jude 4 and "appointed to doom." 1 Peter 2:8. About Pharaoh God said “For this VERY PURPOSE I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Rom 9:17-18. Jesus said "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Matthew 11:25-27. So, 2 Pet 3:9 the "not willing that any should perish" if you read that letter in context, 2 Pet 1:1 says "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours." As far as salvation for all men verses, Paul was refuting the false notion of his time that God was only desiring to save just the Jews and 1 Tim 2:2 says to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" because as humans WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE ELECT ARE SO WE PRAY FOR EVERYONE! That's what it means in verse 4 by saying "all men." Amos 3:2 God said "of all the nations of the earth I have only known you." For centuries God passed over the majority of humankind because this verse isn't about knowledge it's about relationship. And it isn't because God foresaw Israel was more righteous then the other nations because sometimes Israel was more sinful then the pagan nations see 2 Kings 21:9. Only those who were predestined to be saved will be see Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:4-5, Eph 1:11, Romans 9:11-23, John 6:37. Everything that happens in history has been decreed/Predestined before the world was created see Eph 1:11, Proverbs 16:33 and Amos 3:6. And yes even when terrible things happen, I know it's hard for some people to accept but look what happened when David sinned against God and one of Davids punishments was that God told him that he was going to use Davids own son to shame his Father by Absalom Absalom doing something immoral to his Fathers concubines in front of all of Israel, see 2 Samuel 12:11-12 God said "Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun." Notice how God said "I WILL DO THIS THING."That was fulfilled in 2 Samuel 16:21-22.

[@scottphipps3577]

Calvinism doesn't make sense to me. If God controlled everything I do, I wouldn't be personally accountable for anything and sin would not exist. It's just too easy and requires no effort, in my opinion.

[@javariusjavarlamariuslamar3759]

@@georgemoncayo8313 sounds like a God that I find almost impossible to find “loving”

[@georgemoncayo8313]

@@javariusjavarlamariuslamar3759 Yes of course you do, humans are born with a sin nature, the doctrine of total depravity that the Bible teaches that the natural man is a God hater and that we suppress the truth of God because we love our sin the Bible teaches and so that's why humans have a bias to hate the Gd of the Bible so of course you do.Those who repent of their sins and turn to Christ become regenerated and are saved from the wrath of God. Remember God defines what's right and wrong and has the right to judge his creation that he created out of nothing. You as a finite human with a sin nature are not qualified to judge God or define what's right and wrong, ultimately you'll be judged by his standards not yours.

[@tysonguess]

@@georgemoncayo8313 "He died to save his elect." Sorry but neither Scripture nor any Apostle nor anyone that followed taught this which precludes it from being true. 1. If the Apostles taught that view then so would their successors (or at the very least one would) 2. Not one single person ordained by an Apostle witnesses to that view (nor does anyone else until Calvin) 3. Therefore that view is verifiably not Apostolic.

[@silveriorebelo2920]

James White is a well trained obfuscator of the real issues - continuous sophistry

[@tonytebliberty]

Set up a debate with him .

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

Unfortunately listening to White, I have no idea how Calvinism better addresses the problem of evil, rather I watched White disagree with Craig and keep pressing his doubts, even when Craig addressed them. I saw White as an aggressor and Craig as a defender. Strangely how White said his viewpoints are simply Sola Scriptura and easy to understand, but at the end of the broadcast recommended a hard to read book of these issues currently being discussed in reformation theology. You can't have it both ways.

[@imabeast7397]

@@SpaceCadet4Jesus it seemed like he would just disagree right away without even thinking of what Craig was saying, refusing to answer etc. This was NOT a good debate at all. Poor imo

[@tonytebliberty]

@@SpaceCadet4Jesus I’d like to see more of an open discussion with more time to hammer out the objections from both sides as well as the answers. I really enjoyed it though. I love both these brothers.

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

@@tonytebliberty This isn't their first discussion, just don't remember when they first discussed.

[@pastorg720]

Much appreciation to Dr. William Lane Craig & Dr. James White for having a discussion in such a respectful matter even though they have different POV. Great job gentlemen!!!

[@pastorg720]

@ResonableFaithOrg - Thank you for hosting and bringing such discussions.

[@timofyraskolnikov7070]

“That’s not in the Bible” is the kind of argument you hear in youth group. Bill had a lot of patience.

[@larrysnellings7992]

Yeah, he's been around a while.

[@Jondoe_04]

WLC was saying Scripture does not teach that, while James argument is explicitly taught in Scripture. Are we philosophor first or are we Christians?

[@jeffscottkennedy]

Why is no one addressing the fact that J. White has two mail-order doctorates from an unaccredited diploma mill; and WLC is a totally legit scholar with two defended doctorates who regularly publishes in this field? Not only was this not a debate, it wasn’t even a very good discussion. A better conversation would have been between two equally credentialed individuals who publish in academic journals and present papers at conferences on this subject (bring back Helm!). I have two earned doctorates (in ministry and biblical studies) and only study this issue as a hobbyist. But I cannot imagine sitting there pretending (as JW did) that I was Craig’s equal in a discussion like this. White should’ve genuflected and come with questions for the expert in the room, not sat there and repeatedly referred to himself as “a theologian.” JW literally seemed as though he were hearing about Truth-maker Maximalism for the first time when WLC brought it up. He assumed his view was equal to Scripture, apparently unaware that his view of Divine Exhaustive Determinism is permeated with philosophical assumptions (not the least of which is Manichean determinism, which the late Augustine imported from his earlier days as a Manichean heretic). White still failed to address the assigned topic: which view best accounts for suffering and evil in the world? He skated around the issue because he knows that his view collapses back into God being the author of evil. If men are mere instruments and not causal agents, then God is responsible for the evil that men do.

[@realtalk6800]

God is not a respecter of man. One doesn’t need to have doctorates in any field in particular to table a talk, or to be highly knowledgeable in the matter. Having a doctorate only helps one to have a seat among “men”, but not necessarily with God. Moreover, your argument is simply to commit the genetic fallacy: attempting to discredit a view/someone by critiquing its origin. This is simply to have the “pride of life.” We need to be careful of our assessment. I will say that I enjoy listening to WLC quite a bit, as I also agree with his view on molinism, and disagree with Calvinism.

[@jeffscottkennedy]

@@realtalk6800 i didn’t impugn white’s case based on his lack of credentialing. I impugned the quality of the conversation on that basis. True, anyone can chat about any subject. Like you I agree with Craig’s case for Molinism mostly. But some things I’m undecided on and would have questions for him. In which case I would hope I wouldn’t feign expertise in a field where I don’t have it.

[@androcracy]

I think in the eyes of many Christians James White represents a “strong man” for Calvinism. The problem that i had was not his Credentials, but his attitude. There are many layman with less credentials then JW that might be very intelligent & knowledgeable. The problem in my view is JW appears dishonest when he attacks sources (eg Molina being a jesuit) instead of dealing with the subject. That’s a Genetic Fallacy. He doesn’t seem to understand that Calvinism is full of philosophical assumptions & yet leads to the greatest & inconceivable absurdity that God is the author & agent of all evil. That evil must have come out of God. I can affirm that JW wants to root his theology in the Bible, but we know there’s a serious error when his theology leads directly to the most absurd view of God.

[@TheEpicProOfMinecraf]

WLC is on record saying that Calvin was a hyper-Calvinist. These areas are difficult and highly complicated. WLC comes from a very philosophically oriented background while JW comes from a background oriented towards theological purity. WLC is often engaged with atheists. JW is often engaged with those who are religious but not Christian. They have different backgrounds and different areas of expertise. If you think that JW hasn't addressed these issues at all, I don't think that's a fair take. He has in different contexts. WLC never rose to meet JW's challenge in this conversation by providing a biblical basis for Molinism. However, WLC has provided argumentation elsewhere for his views. They were talking at cross purposes the entire time. The fact you don't recognize this and instead desire to impugn James White with a slanderous charge (you can check the 'diploma mills' out and find that their standards are quite rigorous) worries me. In fact, the things which you're bringing up about Manichean determinism in Augustine, JW has addressed on his program several times. If I wanted to make an unfair statement, I would simply say that WLC is caught up in constant philosophical discussions and has no degree truly focused on understanding theology, trying to force God to fit philosophy rather than philosophy to fit God. I can say that accreditation is a sign of institutions crippled by state funding and therefore encourages theological liberalism. Or, you can take the arguments at their face and realize that neither intellect performed well in this discussion as neither was willing to cede ground and advance the conversation.

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

Interesting discussion. Whatever could be said about James White, this is true; he is an expert in the field of Calvinism. And God does weave all things, including evil, to bring about His purpose, even though God is not the author of evil

[@ErinNicole617]

I enjoyed this discussion, love them both! ❤

[@comfy8250]

Even without getting to who's right, it seems Craig clearly knows more about what's being discussed than White, who seems to be hearing some concepts for the first time in this debate.

[@fbee6844]

Not even close. Go back to Islam.

[@Small_Chungus]

@@fbee6844 spoken like a true Whitian.

[@jakehccc1]

Your use of the word seems clearly indicates your lack of depth in the topic. I admire both Craig who has been a Great representative of the Philosophical Community as related to the Word of GOD, however his newest work regarding Adam and Eve powerfully undermines The Scriptures and that is powerfully dangerous and mere Factasy as he admits that it is based on Philosophical Concepts and Imagination.

[@Gruuvin1]

I think James has heard them before, but chooses to not consider them philosophically, by use of logic or reason, because he believes those methods are gateways to deception. Sola Scriptura is his mantra.

[@renierlillie7649]

54:32 James asks, "where is that in Ephesians 1?" However, James refuses to read further to verse 12 even though verse 11 ends with a colon. He conveniently stops at verse 11 to support his view. Whereas verse 12 is consistent with a Molinist perspective and inconsistent with a Calvinist perspective, Eph 1:11-12 (KJV): 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, *who first trusted in Christ.* God has predestinated his divine providence for people who "first trusted in Christ", i.e. who chose Jesus. The predestination has a condition of human free will to choose Jesus. I'd advise anyone doubting the scriptural coherence of Molinism to go to all the scriptures James mentioned that supposedly supports Calvinism and read them in their entirety. In my experience doing so each of these scriptures can be used as an argument against Calvinism and for Molinism, and not as James espouses as scriptural backing for a Calvinist worldview.

[@j.cavani5281]

Was this debate predetermined or have they freely chosen to engage in it? That is the mother of all questions.

[@jasongillis1336]

Did you freely ask your question in the KZbin comment section? Did I? Boy, this debate sounds silly. Thanks, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, for adding all the deterimistic philosophical confusion. Molinism affirms God's omniscience and omnipotence. God absolutely knows the truth value of all counterfactuals, He's God. And of course, God has the capability of creating free creatures, He's God. Love requires freedom of the will. Otherwise, we are all in a simulation, and if the KZbin comment section is determined; just what is the purpose? Lol, everything becomes meaningless in a deterministic scheme. Thankfully, determinism is false, love actually does exist - namely, God is love, and demonstrates His love for us in Christ. You are loved by God!

[@knxcholx]

@jasongillis1336 "did you freely ask your question? Did I?" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@trocha419]

Dr WLC brought it and made strong valid points that were not fundamentally rebutdtaled. James kept bringing up the same issue in different ways while taking scripture out of context. Didn’t even know about Mono viewpoint till today and my own journey and studies of the scriptures and listening to multiple theologians, philosophers, students at SEBTS as well as missionaries from across the globe and came to the same conclusions logical as WLC. I would have loved to jump in on this.

[@ctt59]

When Protestants look at the same data and interpret very differently. Thank you so much for this conversation. The issue is very important: What God's sovereignty means. I am an avid admirer of both. Dr. Craig's smile displays something else: next level.

[@androcracy]

James White also seems to assume his position is theologically superior because he references a didactic passage Ephesians 1. But when i read how Jesus & the apostles refrenced & founded doctrine on Genesis, they held is as authoritative to teach on the character of God. How many passages teach both indirectly by example & directly that God is good & opposed to evil. That He is pleased with righteousness yet punishes wickedness & evil. It’s unthinkable that God is the author of evil.

[@johnfager1]

From a Calvinist perspective, do I sin or does God decree my sin. If God decrees my sin then why should I be held to account?

[@lawrencestanley8989]

God is sovereign over all and ordains whatsoever comes to pass (Ephesians 1:11, Romans 11:36), and whatever He ordains, because God’s will is perfectly righteous and holy, His intention is always for the glory of God, and His will always serves that purpose. Man’s will however is fallen through the imputation of Adam’s sin (Romans 5), and unless his will is captivated by the righteousness of God working within his will to do and to work for the glory of God (Philippians 2:12-13), he will always work out what God ordains for his own sinful purposes (Genesis 50:20), according to his own wicked intentions (Proverbs 16:9, Mark 7:21, Ecclesiastes 7:29). In this way, God ordains (plans/arranges) whatsoever comes to pass, but He is not the author of sin - the existence of sin is in His eternal plan, therefore He has indeed ordained its existence, but he never decrees (commands) individuals to act sinfully; that they do out of their own intentions that have become fallen in Adam (Romans 5). God ordained the action and meant it for good, but men performed the action and meant it for evil. Because men perform the action intending it to fulfill their own sinful desires, although the action itself was ordained by God for His glory, men remain culpable for actions that they perform according to their own wicked intentions. (cf. Isaiah 10:5-11) Calvin has nothing to do with it, rather, your answer comes from an understanding of scripture.

[@BRNRDNCK]

You almost literally quoted the objector to Paul in Romans 9. The fact you think your objection is a Christian one is very ironic.

[@johnfager1]

@@BRNRDNCK thank you for pointing that out. Can I ask a follow up question that has always puzzled me, why does Jesus teach us to pray your will be done on earth as it is in heaven? Is this so we will speak our agreement with his will or to actually influence real events to take place according to his will?

[@johnfager1]

@@lawrencestanley8989 how much choice do I have in life? Do I choose what I do or am I just along for the ride? Is the answer somewhere in between? I honestly want to understand your perspective.

[@lawrencestanley8989]

@@johnfager1 You said: *"why does Jesus teach us to pray your will be done on earth as it is in heaven?"* I realize that this question was not directed at me, but I would like to give a response here. Jesus taught us to pray that His will be done on earth *AS IT IS* in heaven. In heaven, God’s will is done immediately, willingly, joyfully, and from a heart of worship, but here below, God’s will is done begrudgingly, ignorantly, unwillingly, and often not from a heart of worship. God’s will is always accomplished (Ephesians 1:11, Romans 11:36; even in sin God's will is accomplished, see 2 Samuel 12:11-12), but Jesus taught us to pray that His will is done on earth from a heart of worship, as it is in heaven. Take a look at Jesus' teaching in Matthew 21:28-32 as to the accomplishing of God's will through the unwilling participation of imperfect sons.

[@tbuitendyk]

Ephesians 1:10 .... The only verse in the Bible where the Calvinist understands the meaning of "all"

[@tylerpedersen9836]

Craig won this debate handily.

[@Lochaby]

Why doesn't peoples lived experience of making choices eliminate determinism right out of the gate? How is Calvinism not just God playing barbies (or Sid from toy story)? Why can't JW see that philosophy HAS to be logically prior to the bible because we all ultimately use philosophy to interact with scripture at all?

[@jakehccc1]

If Christ died for everyone; Why is there a Hell?

[@larrysnellings7992]

@@jakehccc1 Hell originally was created for Satan and His angels. But simply because Jesus died for everyone does not meant that everyone is therefore saved. That's universalism and it's false doctrine. Jesus did indeed die for all mankind; however not all mankind will repent of sin and put their faith in Him. It is for these who willingly reject the Gospel's call to salvation who will go to Hell.

[@knxcholx]

@@larrysnellings7992 it's sad this has to be explained

[@philtheo]

I'd like to see Dr. Craig debate a more philosophically and theologically astute Calvinist. Perhaps someone like Dr. James Anderson at RTS. James White's expertise is primarily in counter cult ministries or similar (eg contra Mormons, contra Catholics, contra Muslims, contra KJV Only), not philosophical theology. But Molinism vs. Calvinism on the problem of evil is fundamentally an exegetically based philosophical theological debate.

[@maximusatlas9377]

My biggest issue with James White is that he doesn't seem to want to understand William. He even has some double standards. He says that God has a Divine decree which we don't know nor have but we can only know what is in scripture in regards to what is ordained. Yet he doesn't show where in Scripture do we have to believe that other than in regards to all things being determined in scripture (for individual free will) assuming if that even makes sense in a Calvinist view. Yet he demands that William argue from scripture and when he does it seems that it is not magically not enough. Im sorry but I can't take Calvinism seriously when it's such a philosophical and theological contradiction to what can be argued for it. Also he disregards Molina because he was a Jesuit and because he wasn't reformed ( Even though he was actually one of the most well educated in regards to reform theology). Look, I'm not a fan of Jesuits but just because someone doesn't support the same position you do doesn't mean that they can't be right on some aspects nor does it give you the right to disqualify them. That is simply blind bias. You can be bias but just make sure you have a solid reason to believe what you do instead of blind disregard. If that was the case then anything a Calvinist says is by default not valid. While I think this was a fruitful debate, I do not think James White did a good job at explaining his position without coming off as disrespectful at times.

[@georgemoncayo8313]

Jesus did not die for every single person ever and Jesus didn't die to make people savable. He died to save his elect. In John 17:9 Jesus said that he does not pray for the world. The word world is used in different contexts, in that context he's talking about the non elect. In John 3:16 world means that he purchased people from every tribe, tongue and nation Rev 5:9 and for the children of God scattered abroad John 11:52. Some have been "long beforehand marked out for condemnation" Jude 4 and "appointed to doom." 1 Peter 2:8. About Pharaoh God said “For this VERY PURPOSE I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Rom 9:17-18. Jesus said "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Matthew 11:25-27. So, 2 Pet 3:9 the "not willing that any should perish" if you read that letter in context, 2 Pet 1:1 says "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours." As far as salvation for all men verses, Paul was refuting the false notion of his time that God was only desiring to save just the Jews and 1 Tim 2:2 says to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" because as humans WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE ELECT ARE SO WE PRAY FOR EVERYONE! That's what it means in verse 4 by saying "all men." Amos 3:2 God said "of all the nations of the earth I have only known you." For centuries God passed over the majority of humankind because this verse isn't about knowledge it's about relationship. And it isn't because God foresaw Israel was more righteous then the other nations because sometimes Israel was more sinful then the pagan nations see 2 Kings 21:9. Only those who were predestined to be saved will be see Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:4-5, Eph 1:11, Romans 9:11-23, John 6:37. Everything that happens in history has been decreed/Predestined before the world was created see Eph 1:11, Proverbs 16:33 and Amos 3:6. And yes even when terrible things happen, I know it's hard for some people to accept but look what happened when David sinned against God and one of Davids punishments was that God told him that he was going to use Davids own son to shame his Father by Absalom Absalom doing something immoral to his Fathers concubines in front of all of Israel, see 2 Samuel 12:11-12 God said "Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun." Notice how God said "I WILL DO THIS THING."That was fulfilled in 2 Samuel 16:21-22.

[@michaelkarimian7538]

Yes James White tends to get rude when he gets frustrated. Although he is one of my heroes, he was rather quite harsh on Molinism in a video about WLC and Molinism itself. James went so far as to say that it’s both offensive and a joke (he didn’t say specifically say why). Honestly looking at this debate I’d Say William Lane Craig came out on top. I’ll be honest I don’t particularly care about the Calvinism versus Molinism debate since there is scripture on both sides of the issue. In actuality to claim one is better than the other is to claim that we know the mind of God but since God is infinite and we are finite, we can never know his thoughts. However in recent months and looking at both Calvinism and Molinism I’d say I’m on the Molinist side. Calvinism in my opinion makes us all feel like robots where as Molinism makes us feel truly responsible for our actions. Never did I truly think this debate would happen and I’m honored to have witnessed it. It’s truly one of those rare times were James White lost a debate (in my opinion). Congratulations WLC.

[@nwaikikai]

Wow. That was kinda' painful to watch. James employed so many fallacious tactics in this discussion I lost track of them all. Strawman arguing, guilt by association, poisoning the well, red herrings, talking past Bill's points - it was astonishing how diseased with these things James' remarks were. And apart from a brief mischaracterization of how Bill thinks the Calvinist supposes God compels people to do evil, James completely ignored the repeated statement from Bill that the Calvinist/Reformed perspective leads to an evil God. After the fifth time Bill asserted this without any concrete rebuttal from James, it became very clear James has no response that would past muster with a philosopher/theologian of Bill's caliber. All the discussion accomplished for me was to accentuate the sharp difference in clarity, grace and honesty between the two debaters - to the further diminishment of the Reformed view.

[@georgemoncayo8313]

Jesus did not die for every single person ever and Jesus didn't die to make people savable. He died to save his elect. In John 17:9 Jesus said that he does not pray for the world. The word world is used in different contexts, in that context he's talking about the non elect. In John 3:16 world means that he purchased people from every tribe, tongue and nation Rev 5:9 and for the children of God scattered abroad John 11:52. Some have been "long beforehand marked out for condemnation" Jude 4 and "appointed to doom." 1 Peter 2:8. About Pharaoh God said “For this VERY PURPOSE I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Rom 9:17-18. Jesus said "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Matthew 11:25-27. So, 2 Pet 3:9 the "not willing that any should perish" if you read that letter in context, 2 Pet 1:1 says "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours." As far as salvation for all men verses, Paul was refuting the false notion of his time that God was only desiring to save just the Jews and 1 Tim 2:2 says to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" because as humans WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE ELECT ARE SO WE PRAY FOR EVERYONE! That's what it means in verse 4 by saying "all men." Amos 3:2 God said "of all the nations of the earth I have only known you." For centuries God passed over the majority of humankind because this verse isn't about knowledge it's about relationship. And it isn't because God foresaw Israel was more righteous then the other nations because sometimes Israel was more sinful then the pagan nations see 2 Kings 21:9. Only those who were predestined to be saved will be see Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:4-5, Eph 1:11, Romans 9:11-23, John 6:37. Everything that happens in history has been decreed/Predestined before the world was created see Eph 1:11, Proverbs 16:33 and Amos 3:6. And yes even when terrible things happen, I know it's hard for some people to accept but look what happened when David sinned against God and one of Davids punishments was that God told him that he was going to use Davids own son to shame his Father by Absalom Absalom doing something immoral to his Fathers concubines in front of all of Israel, see 2 Samuel 12:11-12 God said "Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun." Notice how God said "I WILL DO THIS THING."That was fulfilled in 2 Samuel 16:21-22.

[@larrysnellings7992]

@@georgemoncayo8313 I would encourage you to read those verses, in context, while setting aside your Calvinist presuppositions.You are confused with biblical election. It is not as the Calvinist teach. It is corporate, not individual (besides Christ Himself). John 3:16 refers to the whole world(i.e., all people, not a select few called the "elect"); John 17:6-11 the word means "world", and refers to all the things within it that are hostile to God; Jude 4 simply admits that there are actions for consequences and God has established those consequences long before; in other words, you live by the sword, you die by the sword; you teach false doctrine pervert the grace of God, you will face His judgement. Romans 9:17-18, in context, means that God is just for saving Gentiles and using them to spread the Gospel, since Israel rejected Christ; it has nothing to do with God choosing one's individual salvation, but rather about God saving Gentiles (and indeed all who trust in Christ), even though they are not Jews, and He is just to do it. Both, Jew and Gentile, are justified by faith in Christ and it is by that criteria that they are saved or not. It's not dependent upon wether they are Jews or not. Similar problems are found in every verse you bring up. I encourage you to go back, read them in their context, and to do so without Calvinists presuppositions. To claim that Jesus did not die so that all might come to repentance and be saved is false doctrine.

[@georgemoncayo8313]

@@larrysnellings7992 I use to be a 5 point arminian for years debating Calvinists so it was my presupusition that Calvinism was not biblical and through my study I found that it was and yes I read Westly and arminian writings since you think you know me so well, it's so clear that your just projecting what you're doing, when it says why does he find fault for who resists his will, that would not be there if arminianism or provisionism or if molinism were true. Type doctrines of grace declared by the early church fathers on you tube, you can find early church fathers in a scattered about way to support all 5 points way before Calvin was born.

[@georgemoncayo8313]

@@larrysnellings7992 Reformed theology is very misunderstood by some.Since I correctly understood Ephesians 1:4-5 and Romans 9:11-23 and John 6:37 and verses 44 and other verses as well,it has given me more of an appreciation for my salvation and more of a love for the Bible.Have you ever really pondered how many people have been passed over,Amos 3:2 and what about all the people who were in other countries like China Japan and others when the Apostles were still preaching in Palestine and many of them probably sinned alot less then some Christians today who God saved,just think about that for a moment,God passed over SO many but he chose to save you,no one excepts Jesus in their life without God first doing a supernatural change in the persons heart FIRST see Acts 16:14 and God hardens the hearts of some so that they will not believe as a Judgment see John 12:39-40,Isaiah 63:17 and Rom 11:7-8 and Jesus praised the Father for doing this because this was well pleasing to God see Matthew 11:25-27 and your choice to choose Christ was not a free choice cause God worked in you so that you would make that decision see Philippians 2:13, John 1:12-13,Proverbs 21:1 because at one time we were all the "natural man" and the natural man "cannot except the things of the spirit of God",or "understand them."See 1 Cor 2:14.

[@georgemoncayo8313]

@@larrysnellings7992 "Reformed theology does not deny that men have wills [that is, choosing minds]or that men exercise their wills countless times a day. To the contrary, Reformed theology happily affirms both these propositions. What Reformed theology denies is that a mans will is ever free from Gods decree,his own intellection,limitations,parental training habits,and [in this life] the power of sin. In sum,there is no such thing as the liberty of indifference,that is,no ones will is an island unto himself, undetermined or unaffected by anything." Robert Reymond-"a new systematic theology of the Christian faith",revised and updated, p.373.

[@mannyc19]

James White is a badly trained obfuscator and I do not trust him. Dr Craig is honest and straightforward in his explanation on this topic. Of the many I have heard on it, Dr Chuck Missler explained it best in his teaching "The Origin of Evil" and 'The Kingdom,The Power,and The Glory' book he wrote.

[@comfy8250]

Craig sounds like a scholar explaining his views and trying to get to the true, White sounds like a redditor out of his element going for a gotcha moment

[@ho8464]

Calvinism seems to claim that God is limited by the inability to create creatures who have free will. If God isn’t limited by necessary truths (e.g. that a square is not a circle), how is it that granting free will is impossible? Fantastic video by the way-I learned a ton! Both sides presented well

[@vikodavid7]

I agree with dr. Craig, there has to be a balance instead of an evil God.

[@marshill88]

This is going to sound ironic but every time I hear calvinism preached, it feels like God is being put into a box.

[@monsenrm]

Just as Dr. Craig said that Scrooge asked the wrong question, I was hoping he would ask Dr. White to explain why God does NOT force people to do evil. Instead he repeated his assertion over and over that Calvinism results in God commanding evil. Make Dr. White to defend it!

[@jdrake33]

I think the point that needs to be brought up is that God created the universe, and then Lucifer became prideful of his own free will, thinking himself equal to God, and rallied angels to his side against the kingdom of God. For some reason that is outside of scriptural knowledge which predates humanity, God did not destroy Lucifer, but allowed him to continue existing. When temptation came to Adam and Eve, they chose of their own free will to choose the offer of godhood over obedience. The world was already set in motion, but it is this point of corruption that brought evil into humanity and the earth, because now humanity has the capacity to choose evil over righteousness, rather than being innocent of all actions. The decree of the Lord is that all should serve Him in righteousness, but free will is the ability to do otherwise, and God obviously values free will above all else in His creation. It is this presence of corruption that distorts and twists the order set in motion by God for each created creature. We may think ourselves wise to dispute historical human ideas, but the simple wisdom of scripture is beyond the best wisdom of men.

[@lawrencestanley8989]

William L. Craig suggests that there are certain truths that do not require a “truth maker,” that is, they are true just because they are true, and they do not need any grounding, and that these "subjunctive conditionals" fall under that definition. However, it is declared of Jesus in both John 1:14, 17 and John 14:6 that He IS the truth, and Ephesians 4:21 declares that “truth is in Jesus.” John 14:17, 15:26, and 16:13 speaks of the Holy Spirit as the “Spirit of truth;” 1 John 5:6 declares that “the Spirit is the truth,” and Isaiah 65:16 declares Him to be “the God of truth.” But this does not mean that He merely aligns Himself with truth as men do in Exodus 18:21, as if truth were some external standard with which He must align, and we know this because, as we have already seen, the scriptures declare that Yahweh IS the truth. We see in John 17:17 that the word of Yahweh is truth, that is, the intangible, sanctifying, essence of Yahweh is truth, and that this truth became flesh. Elsewhere we see that “from Him and through Him and to Him are all things” (Romans 11:36), that is to say, Yahweh is the source, sustainer, and the rightful end of “all things” (see also 1 Corinthians 8:6, 15:28, Ephesians 1:23, 4:6, Hebrews 2:10). Here is the point, any truth, if it is truth at all, has its grounding in Him who IS the truth (Colossians 1:16-20), and any assertion to the contrary that a particular truth is outside of Him, or that some truth can exist without any grounding, is simply false according to the word of Yahweh. Because all truth has its grounding in Yahweh (cf. Psalm 31:5), how is it that Craig can then assert that there can exist “truth” about the creation that has no grounding? According to scripture, no aspect of creation (no truth about creation) can exist outside of the Creator and His eternal decree (cf. Ephesians 1:11, 3:11), therefore Molinism cannot possibly be true since all truth has its grounding in Him who IS truth.

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

I believe that God could only make "1" possible creation that has unlimited freedom for salvation and any other type of creation would be unnecessarily limiting. This unlimited salvation choice creation is the world we live in. Out of all the possible worlds God could make, he thought up the only "1" world, thereby discarding the untold trillions (or more) of possible worlds that don't work. A world where God desires all people to be saved and allows sufficiently free will to choose but knows due to evil, not all people will make the choice to seek him. Evil should not be defined strictly as humanly bad things but rather more of choices and actions that God himself would not/could not choose due to his holiness. Anything outside the will of God for man is evil. Evil is like darkness, it's the absence of light. God allows the expression of evil but is not dependent on it to accomplish his purposes. Evil does serve a unique role in that it automatically separates the sheep from the goats and condemns itself and its bearer as being outside the will of God in view of future judgment. I see God as a personality similar to human personalities in that, he has a will and a purpose and can actively work through civilizations to bring his purposes into being without violating the "relative" free will of his created beings. No being has absolute free will, not even angels. Everyone is affected by the world they find themselves in and by the beings they come into contact with. Only God can exercise absolute unaffected unfettered free will, but he seems to allow himself, at times, to "relative" free will. He can still move people to action, similar to humans moving other humans to action, without removing their exercise of freewill, nor tainting the cause of their judgment. Any logical mistakes above are entirely my own but this is what I've gleaned by and through scripture and the witness of the Holy Spirit over 44 years, without any significant church teaching. I'd say I'm a eclectic mix of Arminism and Molinism. I'm open to intelligent and honest rebuttal.

[@Wonderful.wander]

31:33- of course you have to be biblical 31:41- molinism IS NOT TAUGHT in the scripture is consistent with the scripture.

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

It seems to me that the idea of God creating the specfic world whereby, in that world, he knows every action that his creation "will" do under a set of circumstances and then actually creating only that world so as to get his plan accomplished is merely stacking the deck against any other outcome and smells of pre-creation determinism. I don't doubt, for one moment, that God could tell us of every possible choice that his creation "may" choose (prior to creation) or most that we "will" choose (during our actual living) given any set of circumstances in this world but I don't think he forces that choice upon us pre-creation, nor during the exercise of our will. I also don't think he creates a very specific world whereby his plan is guaranteed (forced) to succeed but rather he works, just like other humans, to get his plan accomplished without adversely affecting human choices in a way that would nullify the integrity of his final judgment. I disagree with Calvin's TULIP viewpoint. God ends up decreeing evil. I mostly agree with Craig, but not the choosing a specific world whereby... I think there is a multitude of world's God could make, but the "1" world he did make allows relative human freewill and allows God to also be a participant without tainting future justice.

[@jakehccc1]

The concept you disbelieve is confirmed by GOD in Scripture, The Word of GOD. If you don't believe GOD in this issue, what other concepts don't you also believe? If you have doubt in GOD's word, you have doubt in all of GOD'S words!

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

@@jakehccc1 Your reply is so vague that I'm almost hesitant to respond to it. I'll guess that you are referring to the Calvin's theological and philosophical construct of the acronym TULIP. First, the acronym TULIP is inferred from scriptures, not found. 2nd, It's logical conclusion is that God creates, even mandates, evil and the actions thereof for his purposes. This is counter to God's spoken word that he is not the author of evil, nor does he think of evil. Created beings do. You might want to look deeper into this issue than just making unsubstantiated blanket statements about someone's adherence to and intent concerning scripture. Reread my first comment slowly three times so you don't misread the exact intent.

[@mlauntube]

20:17 "...or we are going to have to admit that what we have in scripture is insufficient to answer even the most basic questions." This is the view point of someone who thinks that everyone in the kingdom needs to understand the chemical reaction of hydrating Portland cement before they pick up a trowel and start laying bricks and actually participating in the building of God's Kingdom. These pastors hammer the TULIP 5 points into their congregation to the point that people are forced to swear fidelity to extra-Biblical creeds that they don't even understand and they threatened with expulsion if they don't swear "I am of Calvin". The house is on fire and these cultists insist we spend every Sunday Morning Pastor Show talking about a clog in the sink or the type of nails that were used to put up the drywall. They "travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, make them twice as much a child of" fruitless pew warmers as they are. Did any of them notice that their own children are being brainwashed and sexualized at school? How about you join the fight against the powers and authorities that promote the kingdom of satan? How about you call the congregation to take of the seats of power in the political party precinct committee representatives so that Christians will be the ones to decide who the parties endorse? How about you take over those City Council seats and other seats of power like the heroes of the past did (Hebrews 11). Why do we only focus on holding up protest signs in regard to the murdered babies and begging the godless leaders not to allow baby killing, or predators in classrooms, and not on actually do our civic duty as a congregation and fill those seats and we can interpose. We MUST fight! We don't pick up clubs and stand toe to toe with Antifa or BLM, but we must fight! Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Read through Job again and see the folly in presuming to know the mind of God. Calvinist are always SO convinced of what they "know" to be true. Again, the house is on fire!!! Get some water on that fire before you talk about the clog in the sink. Do some actual work on the kingdom and enter the battle with the enemy before you wax philosophical. Eat your dinner before you sit down for desert. Proverbs 24:27 Put your outdoor work in order and get your fields ready; after that, build your house. Priorities!

[@JohnSpencer90]

Regardless of whether the creator interferes with free will, the framework surrounding the existence of evil feels like an elaborate divine game, with humans as unwitting pawns. Even if the creator does not will evil, He could prevent its occurrence by creating only those entities who refrain from committing it.

[@gordonepema722]

I don't think it's accurate to say that humans are unwitting pawns (Genesis 3, Romans 1). Dr Craig has written extensively on the infeasibility (not the impossibility - but what would be the point of involuntarily obedient meat puppets?) of creating a world with freedom of will for its creatures who don't then exercise that freedom sinfully. Even His angels had free will and so some rebelled.

[@gordonepema722]

@@JohnSpencer90 Yes.

[@JohnSpencer90]

@@gordonepema722 So, what’s the point of aspiring to go to heaven if the same free will and freedom to sin exist both on earth and in heaven? Your arguments imply that heaven isn’t a final destination for believers, as their exercise of free will could still result in them being expelled to 'that other place.' So, once again, how is heaven any different from earth?

[@gordonepema722]

@@JohnSpencer90 If our free will is to obey God's laws in this life, however imperfectly, and accept the grace earned for us by Christ's sacrifice in this life, we have God's promise we will be accepted. In heaven one's free will is to worship and enjoy fellowship with God, perfectly as the angels do.

[@JohnSpencer90]

@@gordonepema722 I think you missed my question. How is Heaven any different from Earth, if heaven is not a final destination for believers?

[@MoiLiberty]

13:40 What would be under certain circumstances is taken into account within Gods decree. Sounds nice hearing Craig say this because I have thought and said this. Im sure by influence of Jonathan Pageau’s talks about the language of iconography is how I’ve come to this insight. Like Adam, we participate in creation but we are not the Creator, who is good and stated everything He created was good. We aim to be good, but we are not the good because only God is good. Thusly, we humans can create less than good. The lesser and lesser good we create, the further away we get from Gods creations, which includes ourselves We can move so far away from the image that we were created in that we can create evils but never become evil itself because evil itself was not created by God and therefore does not itself exist as the Creator exists. We can create mirroring our image which He made in His image or not. That is why we are to follow Jesus!

[@RevRMBWest]

As God is all-knowing and all-mighty, nothing can happen unless God allows it - even the evil things, both natural and moral, as well as the good things. So nothing can come to pass without His foresight and foreordination. God forbids moral evil even though He has given us the power and freedom to disobey Him. Since the fall of Adam, however, man is not free of sin; and man never was free of God's knowledge, might, and leave as defined above. The question is what we now do with our fallen will and the answer is clear: we always freely and willingly choose what is wrong with regard to the perfection of God's law. Because of this, God judges us with much natural evil. And rightly so. Shall not the God of all the earth do right?

[@jwg5371]

Amen

[@JohnQPublic11]

Look up the words "bloviate" and "intellectual dishonesty" in the dictionary and there's a picture of Uncle Jimmy.

[@timffoster]

The first time I listened to this (a year ago), I thought both men didn't do a particularly good job. White seemed fixated on issues that were beside the point, and Craig didn't answer the question to my satisfaction (his grounding of God's inability to generate truly infinite number of worlds seems puzzling). On my second time through this, however, I now see White's point a little better. My opinion on WLC's position wasn't improved.

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

The language you use to describe Dr. Craig's position suggests that perhaps you don't understand the concept of "possible worlds." These are not the same as the universes in a multiverse theory. Possible worlds are just different ways that reality could have been. So, if God had never created anything and eternally existed alone, then this would be a different possible world than the actual world. What was evident in the discussion was that White couldn't really even concisely articulate the grounding objection, nor had he even read Dr. Craig's work on the subject. For Dr. Craig's responses, check out this article: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/divine-omniscience/middle-knowledge-truth-makers-and-the-grounding-objection. - RF Admin

[@timffoster]

@@ReasonableFaithOrg Probably more due to dodgy recall, since it was a long time ago when I first heard the discussion. But I'll check out the article. Thanks. (Every time I've interacted with Molinism, I've walked away feeling like it didn't present itself in a way that the Bible wants its readers to think about God. Maybe your article will clear that up.)

[@pepperachu]

WLC is a master of his craft

[@larrysnellings7992]

Seems that White would try to turn the conversation against Craig and put him on the spot, avoiding answering the problem that Calvinism has with God being the author of evil (which logically follows the constructs of Calvinism). The Westminster Confession of Faith tries to have its proverbial cake and eat it too by saying God decrees everything and that all things are done according to His good pleasure, yet not evil; that evil is somehow not part of that. Yet, they nevertheless proclaim *all* things. It's incoherent and logically inconsistent. The reason is because of the ramifications: if they admit God degrees evil too, then He is thereby the author of it. That is obviously unscriptural, so they throw a caveat to rescue themselves. White likes to attempt to argue exegetically, yet he cannot understand the eisegesis he employs to read his Calvinism and Reformed Theology into the text. Craig recognized this, and stated his theology is derived from sola scriptura, not "church tradition", as is James White's. Interestingly, it also seems that White does not realize that his own reading of Scripture is premised upon certain philosophical presuppositions (everyone's is), many of which may or not be consistent with what the Scriptures might say about them. It seems to me that White tries to establish himself on a high horse to give the impression that he is the one who has the high view of Scripture and of God. It is typical Calvinist arrogance. Calvinist like to pretend they have a monopoly on truth; but they do not (Craig's books--and there are more than just those--show otherwise). Indeed, Calvinist theology was largely a polemic against Roman Catholicism, not that of biblical exegesis. As is common, White rarely defends his view, but only challenges the other. This gives the impression that he has control of the conversation and that his view is the more scriptural one. However, he merely reads into the text his own Calvinist presuppositions, seemingly blind to the natural reading of the text by his own Reformed Theology. Molinism is consistent with Scripture, and provides the balance between God's sovereignty and man's free will that is easily seen in Scripture. Molinism is logically and biblically coherent, and there is nothing wrong with adopting the view. For Calvinists, they panic because it seems to take away God's sovereignty; however, it is actually the system that has the *greatest* view of God's sovereignty; for even in the midsts of man's free will God brings about and fulfills His Word.

[@Rafaelcampos4444]

Algum brasileiro poderia traduzir isso aqui...

[@Boogiewalker]

Was anyone else hoping that someone (particularly Bill) would have brought up David at Keilah as an example of God having complete yet non-causal foreknowledge?

[@lawrencestanley8989]

There are no examples in scripture that support Middle Knowledge. All examples of counterfactuals found in scripture are nothing more than examples of natural knowledge that even men have - that is to say, even human beings know that if fire is placed onto gunpowder, it will explode. But God’s knowledge of what men would do under a given circumstance does not come from some mysterious “Middle Knowledge,” but rather, God knows what men would do because God decrees the nature of a man and what he does. Observe... Psalm 33:15 - “He who fashions the hearts of them all, He who understands all their works.” Here, the word יָצַר (yō-ṣêr) is used, and it means “the one who forms;” it is the word that is used of a potter forming pottery in Isaiah 64:8 (cf. Job 10:8, Psalm 119:73). So, He “understands all their works” because He is the one who has “fashioned” the hearts of all of them in the same way that a potter understands a pot because he was the one who made it. God is sovereign over all things (Proverbs 16:33; Matthew 10:29; Romans 11:36; Ephesians 1:11, etc.) - even human decisions (Proverbs 20:24; 21:1). Although God does not entice men to sin (James 1:13), he is still working everything, from individuals to nations, to the end that he has willed (Isaiah 46:10-11). God's purposes do not depend upon man (Acts 17:24-26), nor does God discover or learn anything (1 John 3:20; Job 34:21-22; Psalm 50:11; Proverbs 15:3). All things are decreed by God's infinitely wise counsel (Romans 11:33-36).

[@Boogiewalker]

@@lawrencestanley8989 "All examples of counterfactuals found in Scripture are nothing more than examples of natural knowledge that men have". Um, explain how that applies to what God tells David about Saul at Keilah. 1 Sam. 23. I don't think it fits your example of "natural knowledge" at all. Please explain this without dismissing, downplaying nor obfuscating.

[@lawrencestanley8989]

@@Boogiewalker I thought that I already did explain this. God knows what men would do because God decrees the nature of a man and what he does. Remember, the scriptures in numerous places declare that God IS truth, therefore any truth, if it is truth at all, has its grounding in Him who IS truth. Molinism on the other hand, insists that there exists truth outside of God that delimits His decree. This is obviously false. Given Psalm 33:15, the "counterfactual" regarding 1 Samuel 23 is analogous to a potter who formed a pot with a hole in the bottom, then someone asks the potter, "if I put water in it, will it hold water?" And the response from the potter is an obvious "no," since he was the one who made it with a hole in the bottom, he knows that if water is placed into it, it will leak. Subjunctive conditionals are false. God IS truth, and all truth has its grounding in Him who IS truth, and Molinism is understood to be impossible when the scriptures are read and understood.

[@Dmlaney]

*If there is a willing mind* ? Explain that one James White! 2 Corinthians 8: 12 For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.

[@samsontadelle1448]

It is possible to mention 1 Samuel 23:11 where David asks God whether the men of Kei'lah surrender David into the hand of Saul, and God tells David that if he WOULD stay in Kei'lah, the people WOULD surrender David to Saul. This knowledge has enabled David to escape Saul. A molinistic text?

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

Dr. Craig often cites this text as biblical support for God's knowing counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. As he notes, the passage falls short of proving middle knowledge, since it doesn't specify whether God has this knowledge logically prior to or posterior to the divine creative decree (middle knowledge requiring the former). However, as Molina himself noted, if God only knows these truths logically posterior to the creative decree, then libertarian freedom is obliterated, since it would be God who causally determined the truth values of the counterfactuals. - RF Admin

[@lincolnliking]

James comes across as a lightweight here honestly.

[@georgemoncayo8313]

Ha, not. Jesus did not die for every single person ever and Jesus didn't die to make people savable. He died to save his elect. In John 17:9 Jesus said that he does not pray for the world. The word world is used in different contexts, in that context he's talking about the non elect. In John 3:16 world means that he purchased people from every tribe, tongue and nation Rev 5:9 and for the children of God scattered abroad John 11:52. Some have been "long beforehand marked out for condemnation" Jude 4 and "appointed to doom." 1 Peter 2:8. About Pharaoh God said “For this VERY PURPOSE I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Rom 9:17-18. Jesus said "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Matthew 11:25-27. So, 2 Pet 3:9 the "not willing that any should perish" if you read that letter in context, 2 Pet 1:1 says "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours." As far as salvation for all men verses, Paul was refuting the false notion of his time that God was only desiring to save just the Jews and 1 Tim 2:2 says to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" because as humans WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE ELECT ARE SO WE PRAY FOR EVERYONE! That's what it means in verse 4 by saying "all men." Amos 3:2 God said "of all the nations of the earth I have only known you." For centuries God passed over the majority of humankind because this verse isn't about knowledge it's about relationship. And it isn't because God foresaw Israel was more righteous then the other nations because sometimes Israel was more sinful then the pagan nations see 2 Kings 21:9. Only those who were predestined to be saved will be see Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:4-5, Eph 1:11, Romans 9:11-23, John 6:37. Everything that happens in history has been decreed/Predestined before the world was created see Eph 1:11, Proverbs 16:33 and Amos 3:6. And yes even when terrible things happen, I know it's hard for some people to accept but look what happened when David sinned against God and one of Davids punishments was that God told him that he was going to use Davids own son to shame his Father by Absalom Absalom doing something immoral to his Fathers concubines in front of all of Israel, see 2 Samuel 12:11-12 God said "Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun." Notice how God said "I WILL DO THIS THING."That was fulfilled in 2 Samuel 16:21-22.

[@knxcholx]

@@georgemoncayo8313 oh how humble of you. "I'm saved. You're not. Enjoy hell."

[@georgemoncayo8313]

@knxcholx How humble of you thinking you know who's going tp hell and this is considered a The Peripheral issue in the church and us Reformed people don't claim we know who the elect and non elect are like your arrogant ass. I doubt you ever gave serious study to this debate or church history since most of the biggest evangelists in church history were reformed.

[@LordOfThunderUK]

Both can't be right but both can be wrong.

[@DavidRosario69]

Hosea 8:4 ASV They have set up kings, but not by me; they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off. People chose Kings against God's will. James White should read this. Please, no responses with "this actually means ..." It means what it says.

[@philo3407]

The main thing James didn't understand was how bad he got smoked.

[@chrishardin3672]

As much as I respect Dr. Craig, Molinism is nonsense.

[@1stGruhn]

While this is absolutely a huge topic (the problem of evil literally touches nearly every other theological principle), I find it helpful to focus on what really is freedom. As a compatibilist, moral freedom requires us to be able to do as we please (under the ever present constraint of available and known options) as opposed to libertarian freedom which requires us to always have the option to do otherwise. In addition, I was surprised there was no discussion of grace. As I see it, we always do as we please. Grace is effectively given us such that we please to serve the Lord. But when grace is withheld we go our own way. I have no problem with middle as such, but I don't see the need for God to actualize worlds on account of it (I do have a problem with the idea that God takes council from without, though I suspect Craig would deny that he does). How does grace work in Molinism though? God does not cause us to sin by withholding grace. We would simply be acting according to our character. He need not actualize worlds based on middle knowledge but may dispense grace based on it. And if this sounds too much like a puppet, I don't think so. Romans 9:19-21. We are not owed grace. We are not owed salvation. For God to save some is a mercy.

[@Polimuni]

Lol, I used to have a pen such as Justin's one!! Calvinism? 😲💁‍♂

[@ladillalegos]

I really don’t know why people bother “debating” James White, he always straw-man, refuse to answer, mischaracterize what you are saying, red herrings, etc. Is like a Matt Dillahunty of the “Cristians”

[@trocha419]

I feel like if James White spent time in 4chan looking through rekt and gore threads for a month would drastically change his perspective on this topic. I fundamentally disagree that God had anything to do in doing things you can find there.

[@danskiver9195]

I find Dr Craig’s argument more compelling but doesn’t go far enough. It’s my belief that God’s all knowing nature is mixed in with his trinitarian make up.

[@delicheres]

Prédestination ? Free will ? It doesn’t matter at all for If we are predestined it looks like we have free will and our salvation does not depend on that belief but in our trust Jesus is the son of God, incarnated, been killed for our sins, been buried and raised from the dead. Now if you wanna have endless discussion between Calvinism, molinism , Arianism, Nestorianism and so on ……. You’re welcome to do it 🤷🏻‍♂️God doesn’t care at all for HE wants you , you know :YOU .

[@ChristopherWentling]

Because puppets are not guilty of their actions. If a person programs a robot to kill the robot is not guilty of the murder but instead the guilty party is the one who programmed the robot to kill. The calvinist, to preserve the sovereignty of God, makes God the author of evil. There has to be a better way.

[@knxcholx]

@@ChristopherWentling exactly.

[@rightousliving]

I have to shake my head how James fails to see how evil, if it is predetermined, would make God an evil being that uses living beings as chess pieces he can move about as he wishes for his own pleasure. What kind of pleasure is that? Yes we do wonder about certain passages in scripture like those where he hardens peoples heart so they don’t repent and be saved. That’s why Jesus spoke in parables for example. This doesn’t mean however that Jesus doesn’t want them to be saved but that pearls are not meant to be thrown before swine. Many are called but few are chosen. God knows what is in the heart of people and yes, he can assert influence on it, like he did with Paul when he persecuted Christians and changed him to become a disciple. Why doesn’t God do that with everyone, isn’t it unfair to single out individuals and let the rest go to hell? There are many aspects to consider. First Paul was thinking he was serving God by persecuting Christians. So in a sense he was already wanting to do what is pleasing to God. Yet there are many other people in that category who don’t get special invitations. So it couldn’t have been his zeal for God alone. Christians are taught to love their enemies. Bless those who curse you. Considering that many Christians felt the persecution many would have been inclined to pray for Paul. God answers prayer. So God did act on Paul’s heart because there were many Christians praying in agreement for him. Now that’s not in the bible, however if we assume that those Christians practiced what they were taught it’s the most likely explanation. It could be explained with predetermination that Paul was a chosen vessel but also that God through Jesus brought in teachings that made Christians pray in agreement and see results. God did not cause Paul to persecute Christians but he gave him a zeal for God that Paul misinterpreted. Jesus had to intervene at the behest of many Christians praying for Paul to stop him in his tracks.

[@lawrencestanley8989]

I never thought of the "problem of evil" as a problem at all. While God is properly said to ordain, and thus be the ultimate cause of all things (Ephesians 1:11, Romans 11:36, James 4:13-15) -even evil- (cf. 2 Samuel 12:11-12, 1 Kings 22:19-23) He is never the proximate, or efficient cause of evil, and scripture regards only the proximate or efficient cause of evil as the chargeable or blameworthy party. For example, when wicked men steal Job’s goods, Job recognizes that “Yahweh gave and Yahweh has taken away, blessed be the name of Yahweh” (Job 1:21). The thieves, being the efficient cause of the evil since they were the ones who carried out the deed, are brought on by Satan, the proximate cause of the evil since he was the one into whose power Job was placed and who incited the thieves; they are both guilty of committing evil, but Job doesn’t question the motives of Yahweh, who was the ultimate cause of the evils that Job experienced (cf. Job 1:8, 12, 2:3). This is further substantiated by examining God’s role in sending Joseph into slavery (Genesis 45:5-8, 50:20), in sending Assyria to destroy Israel (Isaiah 10:1-8), and in inciting David to take the census of Israel (2 Samuel 24:1, 10, 15, cf. 1 Chronicles 21:1). In the case of David, we see that (a) God is the ultimate cause of this act, ultimately decreeing that it should be; (b) Satan is a proximate cause, the instrument Yahweh uses to stir up this evil in the heart of David; and (c) David is the efficient cause, having carried it out according to his own sinful inclination, and thus is culpable for the action. The Biblical writers never hesitate to say that God brings about sin and evil, yet never accuse Him of wrongdoing.

[@Boogiewalker]

Now, if only Dr. White had been able to formulate and articulate THAT as a response! Thank you.

[@ryangallmeier6647]

Excellent breakdown, and a demonstration of why Systematic Theology is still the Queen of the Sciences. Nice job, Lawrence. *Soli Deo Gloria*

[@MatrxBstr]

It would be beautiful to have Dr. Dale Tuggy in the mix !

[@jakehccc1]

To mix Craig's Philosophical background (Remember Craig has admitted to not being a Theologian) in developing his most recent work on Adam and Eve undermines the Scripture and has serious consequence that need to to be Seriously Evaluated and Understood. I have been a Great Fan of Craig and for many years. His impact has been very positive over the years, however his current work has detracted the Word of GOD in many unfortunate ways.

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

No, Dr. Craig has never admitted to not being a theologian. He has a doctorate in theology. If you read his books, you will see that he always begins by examining exactly what the Scriptures say (and do not say) on the topic and only then begins to build upon that foundation. - RF Admin

[@urielmontijo2505]

I see that James is against Molinism because it is not derived from scripture. I would argue that it doesn’t have to arrive from scripture in order for it to work effectively. To use an example, imagine that you buy a a kids toy, specifically that one that has differently shaped holes and pieces that fit those holes. James is saying that one can only use the pieces that came in the set because anything else doesn’t fit. Now image I take a big wooden block that doesn’t fit and slowly but shortly I carve away at it to make it fit until it does. If what I have fits then why can’t it not be used? Now let’s image 2 things, scripture and a system used to understand it but that doesn’t directly from it. Now for the sake of argument let’s say that scripture is divided in 3 segments, A B and C. For A and B the system used fits perfectly but on C the system doesn’t seem to fit. If we can make it fit with further interpretation in a way that doesn’t contradict neither the system nor scripture, then the problem is solved, if either is contradicted then the system is discarded and a new one is put the understand. Molinist have found a way to make their system fit to scripture without contradicting either. I it fits then what is the problem with it not originating from the Bible directly?

[@Boogiewalker]

I will agree: I found (and do find) Dr. White's (and anyone else's) "textualist 'gotcha!'s" very tired and tiring. It's like the theological version of a game of "Simon Says". I honestly expected better of Dr. White.

[@Oneon]

Completely agree with James White. Read Romans 9 because it addresses this exact issue. God authors evil to show his power and grace. If everyone was good then God wouldn't need to act and no one would put their faith in him. However, if God pours out his wrath on good people he wouldn't be a good God would he? Nor would he be able to show his grace would he?

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

White seems to illicitly read universal divine causal determinism into the text of Romans 9, which is eisegesis, not exegesis. If determinism is true, then God is the one causing people to sin, which is theologically abhorrent. Here's Dr. Craig's reading of that passage: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fYCkYqNpg8Z9Z8U. - RF Admin

[@Oneon]

@@ReasonableFaithOrg By hardening Pharaoh's heart, the text is giving a specific example of God causing people to sin. It further makes the case that we have no right to question what God does with his clay, that he can make some for honorable use and some for dishonorable use.

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

@@Oneon Why think that "hardening" is synonymous with "deterministically causing to be hardened?" Are you familiar with the distinction between strong and weak actualization? If not, Dr. Craig explains the difference here: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/does-god-cause-people-to-do-evil. - RF Admin

[@lawrencestanley8989]

@@ReasonableFaithOrg Except the scriptures are explicit that God does indeed "raise up evil." Observe 2 Samuel 12:11-12 where three times, God declares that He is the one raising up evil against David, and while there are other fulfillments of this declaration, adultery is mentioned immediately in the text. Not only this, but observing the book of Job, after everything that happened to Job in chapter 1, Job recognizes that “Yahweh gave and Yahweh has taken away, blessed be the name of Yahweh” (Job 1:21). The thieves, being the efficient cause of the evil since they were the ones who carried out the deed, are brought on by Satan, the proximate cause of the evil since he was the one into whose power Job was placed and who incited the thieves; they are both guilty of committing evil, but Job doesn’t question the motives of Yahweh, who admitted that He was the ultimate cause of the evils that Job experienced (cf. Job 1:8, 12, 2:3). This is further substantiated by examining God’s role in sending Joseph into slavery (Genesis 45:5-8, 50:20), in sending Assyria to destroy Israel (Isaiah 10:1-8), and in inciting David to take the census of Israel (2 Samuel 24:1, 10, 15, cf. 1 Chronicles 21:1). In the case of David, we see that (a) God is the ultimate cause of this act, ultimately decreeing that it should be; (b) Satan is a proximate cause, the instrument Yahweh uses to stir up this evil in the heart of David; and (c) David is the efficient cause, having carried it out according to his own sinful inclination, and thus is culpable for the action. The Biblical writers never hesitate to say that God brings about sin and evil, yet they never accuse Him of wrongdoing.

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

@@lawrencestanley8989 Right, but again, there is a difference between bringing about a state of affairs via causal determinism and bringing about a state of affairs via freedom-permitting providence. So, unless one can show that "raise up evil" or "hardening" are synonymous with or imply causal determinism, then these cannot be taken as prooftexts for the concept. Also, given the doctrine of divine concurrence, an effect can be said to be brought about by God in a providential sense without attributing the evil of the human choice to him. This is because God intends the effect for a morally sufficient reason, whereas the same effect is intended by a creature for a morally insufficient reason. This is why, in the same breath, Joseph could say that the effect of his being sold into slavery could be meant by the brothers for evil, but by God for good. Through weak actualization and providential planning that incorporates middle knowledge, God is able to bring about the effect without removing human freedom. For more on the doctrine of divine concurrence, check out the following from Dr. Craig: www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-creation/doctrine-of-creation-part-9. - RF Admin

[@Greyz174]

James is really scary looking

[@imabeast7397]

Mr. White is knowledgeable but seems to be missing something. I dont think scripture supports Calvinism. He also doesnt seem to get that God doesnt make humans do evil, but he may allow* it to freely happen.

[@ryangallmeier6647]

No Calvinist says, "God's makes people do evil". Stop with that kind of nonsense, please. God created everything "good...yea, very good". Then the temptation and subsequent fall. All humanity fell with Adam; Adam's sin (only his first sin; not all his other sins) was imputed to the whole of his posterity (do you deny this?). All humanity have as their LEGAL/FORENSIC HEAD: Adam (do you deny this?). All humanity have as their spiritual head: Satan! (Do you deny this?). All humanity does in accordance with their nature as fallen sons and daughters of Adam, having as their spiritual head the "father of lies" himself. Do you deny any of this? How, exactly are they "Free"? According to Scripture, they are not "free," but, ENSLAVED! Questions? Let me know. *Soli Deo Gloria*

[@imabeast7397]

@@ryangallmeier6647 clearly you didn't watch this debate. Yes. They infected say this by default.

[@ryangallmeier6647]

@@imabeast7397 "by default," huh? Yeah, I didn't think you could actually cite where Calvinists say "God makes people do evil". I would encourage you to do a little more study of actual Reformed writings before you make such false accusations.

[@larrysnellings7992]

@@ryangallmeier6647 They don't say it because they understand the ramifications. The logical conclusion to Reformed Theology is that God makes people do evil; it cannot be anything but that; no matter how much the Calvinists denies it. It's simply a case of having one's cake and eating it too. They want both to be true (God decreeing all things; yet not decreeing evil). He either decrees all things, or He does not. It cannot be any other way.

[@ryangallmeier6647]

@@larrysnellings7992 Any view that is not Dualistic, or, Deistic has God "causing" evil in some way, shape, or form. Unfortunately, many Christians have fallen into Deism (including yourself). I notice you didn't even mention the distinction between Remote and Proximate causation. Scripture does, though. Fact of the matter is, you folks don't know how to properly (that is, biblically) define your terms, and so you fall into all kinds of error. Example, what is your definition of "human free will"? I can almost guarantee it ain't the biblical definition. How about "responsibility". Did you know that this is a word/concept that can NEVER properly apply to God? Naw, Scripture teaches the 5 Points of Calvinism very clearly. It denies the philosophically speculative definitions of 'human free will' that you folks are dogmatic about. The whole Reformation was based on refuting such nonsense. Shame this Laodicean Church Age can't see it. Anyways... *Soli Deo Gloria*.

[@georgemoncayo8313]

Jesus did not die for every single person ever and Jesus didn't die to make people savable. He died to save his elect. In John 17:9 Jesus said that he does not pray for the world. The word world is used in different contexts, in that context he's talking about the non elect. In John 3:16 world means that he purchased people from every tribe, tongue and nation Rev 5:9 and for the children of God scattered abroad John 11:52. Some have been "long beforehand marked out for condemnation" Jude 4 and "appointed to doom." 1 Peter 2:8. About Pharaoh God said “For this VERY PURPOSE I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Rom 9:17-18. Jesus said "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Matthew 11:25-27. So, 2 Pet 3:9 the "not willing that any should perish" if you read that letter in context, 2 Pet 1:1 says "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours." As far as salvation for all men verses, Paul was refuting the false notion of his time that God was only desiring to save just the Jews and 1 Tim 2:2 says to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" because as humans WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE ELECT ARE SO WE PRAY FOR EVERYONE! That's what it means in verse 4 by saying "all men." Amos 3:2 God said "of all the nations of the earth I have only known you." For centuries God passed over the majority of humankind because this verse isn't about knowledge it's about relationship. And it isn't because God foresaw Israel was more righteous then the other nations because sometimes Israel was more sinful then the pagan nations see 2 Kings 21:9. Only those who were predestined to be saved will be see Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:4-5, Eph 1:11, Romans 9:11-23, John 6:37. Everything that happens in history has been decreed/Predestined before the world was created see Eph 1:11, Proverbs 16:33 and Amos 3:6. And yes even when terrible things happen, I know it's hard for some people to accept but look what happened when David sinned against God and one of Davids punishments was that God told him that he was going to use Davids own son to shame his Father by Absalom Absalom doing something immoral to his Fathers concubines in front of all of Israel, see 2 Samuel 12:11-12 God said "Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun." Notice how God said "I WILL DO THIS THING."That was fulfilled in 2 Samuel 16:21-22.

[@henriquelucastristan]

Calvinism is a nominalist-voluntarist protestant cosmology. Luther and Calvin, but even more strongly Zwingli, have built a strong theology that makes "good" whatever God says is good. For the teleological purpose of God's glory, absolutely anything will be called morally "good", and God won't be held accountable for evil. The issue that arises from it is that God's caracter becomes totally undetermined. God and mankind won't share the same moral standards. If we call God "good" this will mean "good" in terms of what God says is good. Tha same will be true for "loving", "righteous", etc. Words here are meaningless, since men aren't capable of defining it in God's conceptions. For example, if we say Hitler loved the captive jews and expressed it by giving them house, food e job, that will be called unlove. "This is not how we define "love". But if God does the same to the predestined reprobates (He sustains them with material blessings, willing to destroy them in the end) that would be called "love" by many calvinists. If that's too strong just change the word to "good". How can we trace God's caracter this way, since our words are only applicable in Creation, but doesn't communicate anything about the Creator?

[@androcracy]

Notice James White frequently attacks the source of an idea instead of staying on topic. Molina wasn’t necessarily wrong merely because he was a Jesuit. Neither is Craig wrong simply because Ephesians 1 doesn’t flesh out underlying assumptions. The fact James White employs logical fallacies just reinforces to me how lacking in self awareness & petty he is. I don’t think he honestly wants to consider who God is. Calvinism makes God into the author of evil. This makes everything absurd in the bible.

[@oracleoftroy]

Wasn't that in response to WLC claiming Molina to be one of the greatest theologians of all time? If the genetic fallacy is wrong, it is wrong for both parties. But WLC having brought it up, it is proper for White to respond. I don't like the special pleading.

[@trocha419]

Calvinism as the guy is arguing for would actually disprove God and the Bible because it would insinuate that God is not wise or all powerful with the vast amount of dark evil things people are capable of.

[@rayvillers2688]

Jimmy boy you just got your butt kicked. Molinism makes more sense.

[@ChosenGen]

James point isn't biblical, makes human beings robots and makes God worst than the satan. How can't he understand that me cheating on my girlfriend isn't God joyfully and purposefully making me to do that?

[@Gruuvin1]

53:58 James White expects a text, and if it isn't biblical, and according to his biblical interpretation, then he won't accept it. He has no respect for discovering any truth by means of reason or logic. He has no respect for an open-ended question being formally resolved 1500 years after scriptural authorship. This is why presuppositional apologetics, James White style, fails. This is why he goes in circles. He cannot accept something reasonable if you cannot point to it in God's word. Therefore he's unreasonable. No laws of logic, no laws of mathematics, not on James White's watch. 1:09:45 was a great final response to James White's hyper-Sola-Scriptura criticism.

[@AlanLoeffler]

I give the argument to James White and the examples of scripture he cited.

[@nosyt42]

See the video I did with Dr. Tim Stratton for an extensive look at how White's prooftexting actually reads philosophical principles into the texts rather than from them: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r2eXkHtmpZuknMU.

[@Dmlaney]

Nobody is limiting God as you put it. What Molinists are saying is that God does not determine how people react to God's actions. Stop strawmanning other people. You are the king of strawmanning people and bs arguments.

[@lawrencestanley8989]

Actually, Craig has said multiple times and in many different videos that subjunctive conditionals delimit God's decree.

[@TheAxe504]

As a former logician turned finance fan from India let me try to over simplify it 😂 If we assume that Set A < 123 (numerical order) as true then it is also logical to simplify that Set A is less than 1 to 3 (numerical order) and is also true. : though 2 is not present in the simplyfication, however since the sequence is in numerical order :though not present it is automated and present .. I think it elucidate Craig’s point! Middle knowledge does not eradicate Gods divine decree or divine determination! PS:Why the hell Am i commenting on a video wherin christian theology is debated ! Iam not even christian🤣

[@jaikee9477]

Calvinism is blasphemy, simple as that. It literally turns our HOLY, HOLY, HOLY GOD into the author of evil (for his own glory?). This was just another debate between Dr Craig, a world class scholar, loved and respected all over the world and a stubborn schoolboy. I love my LORD and he is NOT the author of my sins which is why this unbiblical calvinist nonsense makes me angry. James White is my brother in Christ but he needs to repent.

[@pausuansian1863]

👍

[@javariusjavarlamariuslamar3759]

Ahhh if only the Bible wasn’t so ambiguous these two coulda spent time feeding the hungry or something instead of researching and debating this. Too bad God IS the author of confusion. And if he isn’t, he really dropped the ball on clearly explaining his message to mankind.

[@TheologyInMind]

While I empathize with White’s position in this discussion, I found it frustrating that he didn’t make an effort to address the primary concern that triggered Molinism, the question of how theological determinism doesn’t make God morally responsible for evil. I’d like to understand what Reformed Theology’s strongest response is to that question. So far, I’ve only heard it expressed as “it’s a mystery that we humbly have to accept”. The conversation would have been more productive if it dwelt on the nature of God’s moral responsibility rather than on the epistemological value of theological/philosophical modeling.

[@oracleoftroy]

I heard both give the same answer, the doctrine of primary and second causes. If the confessional answer white cited isn't satisfactory, I don't see how Craig resolved the issue, and if Craig's answer is fine, then Calvinism is also acceptable. In terms of determinism, both have God creating a world whose whole history he knows beforehand and who has the power and knowledge to have done otherwise. The difference is the source of that knowledge. In Calvinism, God knows how to make whatever universe he wants, and makes this one for his own good purposes. And in molinism, God and potential man co-author the creation decree through God's use of middle-knowledge. In either case, the result is deterministic, and in neither case is the result fatalistic.

[@Gruuvin1]

It seems one of the reasons God created time is so we can exercise our will without violating God's will.

[@reignconsumer]

William Lane Craig clearly cannot defend his position with Biblical argumentation. James White demonstrates that the Calvinist, or Reformed perspective, strictly sticks with what is written in God's Word.

[@michaelscott873]

Calvanism "Cuz God sed it so, so it is so, derp derp"

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

WLC has given scriptures in other videos to back up his major claims. The answer to the subject matter at hand is not clearly or even completely elucidated in scripture, nor is scripture forced to answer the question. We enter the realm of philosophical theology at some point, but at no point have we, nor do we desire to subjugate scripture. Calvinism has been studied sufficiently and plenty of videos are available to discuss it's problems and the interpretive slant it holds. I do not have a list of counter argument easy to watch videos to link here, sorry. Perhaps with enough demand I may start a list.

[@DimitriPappas]

Dr Craig cites several clear example cases of middle knowledge in the Bible, to demonstrate the applicability of Molinism as a sound interpretation of those Biblical verses. He explains and reiterates *repeatedly* how Molinism is the only Biblical interpretation which reconciles both actual utilitarian human/agent free will, with God's divine providence in a non-conflicting way, or obscurely requires that God must somehow be the author & initiator of evil. That much alone is derived and inferred directly from honest, rational Biblical interpretation. So Molinism seems to be similarly derived in a Biblical framework and so does not preclude or contradict any Biblical truths. It best reconciles the full scope of Biblical truths while resulting in the least perceivable dissonance between them. That seems inherently "argumentative" on Biblical grounds, at least to my mind. How much more argumentative need it be than that? Arguably most Christians today agree that the Genesis creation account should not be interpreted in literal terms, because that clashes with what science suggests. Does that make the Bible any less credible in today's age? Of course not. On the contrary in fact: we can be confident that it reinforces the eternal applicability and inerrancy of God's word, even if we find ourselves in disagreement with any ardent young earth creationists amongst us. The Calvinist faces a similar challenge reconciling true free will with determinism. Every verse in the Bible needs to be interpreted in some way. We so happen to call this part of that very interpretation "molinism". The fact that it's "newer" than Calvinism should do nothing to discredit it's viable applicability in how accurately it accounts for objective Biblical truths with greater accuracy. If it turns out to be the best explanation to the logical minds which God endowed us with for the purpose of rationalizing, then it seems to me that we are in fact obligated if anything, to recognize it as true.... as the definitive "default position", regardless of what it is labeled, when it was discovered, or how it may be formally defined in theology et al. It's just an interpretative framework, like all of the others we happen to agree upon (or not). No need to over-complicate that further with extraneous criticality and doubt... Simply see it for what it is, and then like any rational thought, decide whether it fundamentally lines up with reality or not. I discovered I was a Molinist when I learnt that Molinism was the formal theological definition for what I already thought was true in my own personal pursuit for the truth, just as an alcoholic must come to terms with the fact that the word "alcoholic" best describes their habit whether they just so happen to favor the word or whoever so happened to coin it at some time in the finite past.

[@georgemoncayo8313]

@12345shushi Lol White demonstrated the Heiser doesn't really understand it and Jesus did not die for every single person ever and Jesus didn't die to make people savable. He died to save his elect. In John 17:9 Jesus said that he does not pray for the world. The word world is used in different contexts, in that context he's talking about the non elect. In John 3:16 world means that he purchased people from every tribe, tongue and nation Rev 5:9 and for the children of God scattered abroad John 11:52. Some have been "long beforehand marked out for condemnation" Jude 4 and "appointed to doom." 1 Peter 2:8. About Pharaoh God said “For this VERY PURPOSE I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Rom 9:17-18. Jesus said "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Matthew 11:25-27. So, 2 Pet 3:9 the "not willing that any should perish" if you read that letter in context, 2 Pet 1:1 says "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours." As far as salvation for all men verses, Paul was refuting the false notion of his time that God was only desiring to save just the Jews and 1 Tim 2:2 says to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" because as humans WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE ELECT ARE SO WE PRAY FOR EVERYONE! That's what it means in verse 4 by saying "all men." Amos 3:2 God said "of all the nations of the earth I have only known you." For centuries God passed over the majority of humankind because this verse isn't about knowledge it's about relationship. And it isn't because God foresaw Israel was more righteous then the other nations because sometimes Israel was more sinful then the pagan nations see 2 Kings 21:9. Only those who were predestined to be saved will be see Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:4-5, Eph 1:11, Romans 9:11-23, John 6:37. Everything that happens in history has been decreed/Predestined before the world was created see Eph 1:11, Proverbs 16:33 and Amos 3:6. And yes even when terrible things happen, I know it's hard for some people to accept but look what happened when David sinned against God and one of Davids punishments was that God told him that he was going to use Davids own son to shame his Father by Absalom Absalom doing something immoral to his Fathers concubines in front of all of Israel, see 2 Samuel 12:11-12 God said "Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun." Notice how God said "I WILL DO THIS THING."That was fulfilled in 2 Samuel 16.

[@georgemoncayo8313]

@12345shushi White is a Biblical scholar and I do understand his work, Heisers divine council theology, funny how you assume I don't understand his work when we didn't really discuss that, only that he misrepresented Reformed theology, if you haven't seen that episode of the dividing line then that comment was just a dismissive strawmnan comment out of ignorance and divine council theology that Heiser teaches is very much outside the norm of Christian scholarship orthodoxy. Let's see , the field of textual criticism is totally changing and White is currently going for his PhD in that, most scholars actually are not even familiar wit the new system of text criticism because its still somewhat new and White knows 7 languages. Yeah heiser who believes in little gods because he eisegestes a psalm and a few other verses, I was actually just listening to some of him today on that. Yeah Heiser is a real Biblical scholar but there's a you tube video of him saying he wouldn't debate White and debating is for the lazy, very strange for him to say that.By the way nothing of what you said was a refutation of what I said, I don't make the Bible my personal playtoy, Reformed people are actually serious about exegesis. Pretty arrogant the way you came across. note that's not a fruit of the spirit.

[@billboardman8747]

James never answered the question

[@jay1871]

White opens with a confession and Craig opens with Charles dickens. Lol guys! The Bible is available to you both!😂😂

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

They both discuss the Bible throughout the conversation. Did you watch the whole video? - RF Admin

[@jay1871]

@@ReasonableFaithOrg yes I watched through and enjoyed it I just was remarking of the irony really. Not a critique, just fun.

[@fbee6844]

Makes sense. Hopefully molinism goes away.

[@geico1975]

Talk about a fumbled mess of who's right? Who's wrong? HA! "God is not the author of confusion" whoever wrote that did so without the moving of the Holy Spirit on his hand:) Bhahaha!

[@jordonhodges8493]

😂

[@SquishMe]

This was incredibly one-sided, pitting White vs someone clearly above his paygrade felt kind of unfair no? surely there must be a Calvinist that is up to par to Dr. Craig no?