William Lane Craig vs James White - Calvinism vs Molinism: which best addresses the Problem of Evil?

Calvinism and Molinism are two very different ways of understanding God's sovereignty. But which one best addresses the problem of evil?
James White argues that Calvinism - God foreordaining all human behaviour both good and evil - is the more Biblical and coherent view. William (Bill) Lane Craig argues that Molinism - a view which reconciles human freedom and divine sovereignty - is Biblically consistent without making God the author of evil.
For James White: www.aomin.org
For Bill Craig: www.reasonable...
For the 2013 Bill Craig & Paul Helm dialogue on Calvinism & Molinism: bit.ly/3o550G0
• Register for Premier Unbelievable? Live: www.unbelievabl...
• Get our 'Confident Christianity' course: www.premier.org...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsi...
• Rest of the world: resources.prem...
• Newsletter: www.premier.or...
• Blog: www.premierins...
• For the podcast: www.premierchri...
• Facebook / premierunbelievable
• Twitter / unbelievablejb
• Insta / justin.brierley

[@PremierUnbelievable]

Hope you all enjoy this. If you want more from the show subscribe to our newsletter www.premier.org.uk/resource/unbelievable/

[@shaunpontsler9484]

Thanks Justin, you are a great host for an awesome program!

[@frakjessenriqueespinallora7019]

ESPAÑOL PLEASE

[@movasaodendaal9730]

Part two please…

[@jeffscottkennedy]

Thanks Justin. Very stimulating discussion

[@dei_nermz]

Yes! I love it! I love God all the more in this discussion , another knowledge gained about God's sovereignty.

[@castanedamusic1578]

Justin, you’re probably the best moderator I’ve ever seen in any debate ever.

[@dbkoala]

I agree. He allows both parties to have time to make their points and and counterpoints, he asks thoughtful questions, and if something is not clear to him or some of us in the audience he asks for explanation.

[@Terrobul]

Plus he invented a new cologne 😁

[@ericchartrand4743]

You got that right. Best moderator out there, hands down.

[@mentalwarfare2038]

Not to mention, he’s just wholesome in the way he speaks

[@Resenbrink]

He consistently does a great job.

[@JERagan]

WLC: “He was giving Scrooge a hypothetical knowledge of subjunctive conditional propositions…” Me: *furiously flipping through a dictionary*

[@castanedamusic1578]

😂😂😂😂

[@growingtruedisciples]

😂😆😂

[@milosobilic7817]

Craig was providing a text that Calvinists haven't systematically misrepresented for hundreds of years so they'd be able to understand what he was saying (⌐■_■)

[@milosobilic7817]

@@lewisroby6163 Sir, what do you think an analogy is?

[@gretareinarsson7461]

😄😄😄

[@itsmejessie]

William Lane Craig reminds me of my father in the very best way. He is gracious and loving and humble. Always respectful and tactful. I always appreciate the eloquent, clear way in which he explains deep concepts. Though I don't align fully with Dr. Craig on a select few Christian topics (like the age of the earth, for example) I deeply admire his knowledge and wisdom, his work for the Gospel and his debating style. This debate was very helpful for me and wow, the moderator does an excellent job! James White isn't my cup of tea when it comes to debating and I feel he avoids the difficult questions. I also find him far less respectful and tactful towards others than a lot of the people on the opposing side to Reformed Theology. But with that said, I do respect Dr. White as a brother in Christ and for the work he has done for the Kingdom. Excellent video, overall.

[@samvogel2368]

James often comes across this way. However, the more debates and Q& a I've listened to with him in it, he genuinely loves. He's just very to the point. He's an excellent debater and goes to the point.

[@gsp8489]

It has always seemed more sovereign and awe inspiring that God WILL achieve his will THROUGH the free will of man rather than by controlling mans will. It seems that meticulously controlling and moving each piece to accomplish his will insinuates that if he didn't do that, it would spiral out of his control.

[@JAGChristianos]

@AVB2 Yes we would follow God 100% of the time. So, maybe instead of assuming that we are "saved" while living in sin we could embrace the idea that we aren't which would increase the fear of God which would drive us toward God to work out the character problems that keep us separated from Him. 1John 3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. 1John 3:5 And you know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. 1John 3:6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. 1John 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; How righteous was Jesus? 50%, 75%, 90% or 100% righteous?

[@JAGChristianos]

@AVB2 Concerning Rom 7, many teachers get this wrong. The assumption is that Paul is speaking of the normal life of a Christian in chapter 7. If that's the case then Christians can't stop sinning and Paul would have contradicted himself in Romans 6 and 8. So, is that what's happening? Is Paul saying we must stop sinning in Rom 6 but we can't in Rom 7 but then again in Rom 8 he says he's "free from the law of sin and death" which would contradict what he just said in Rom 7 if he meant in Rom 7 that he can't stop sinning? OR....is it more likely that Paul was describing a past event but using a present tense form of literary device to describe it? Example: My cat catches lots of mice." This refers to the past (my cat, in the past, has caught lots of mice).

[@JAGChristianos]

@AVB2 I agree. The change is so radical that a real believer STOPS SINNING. 1John 3:9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. This is what a "born again" person looks like. OSAS wants to teach grace as a license for sin just like Jude warns about concerning the false teachers. And, a new birth date doesn't preclude a new death. Scripture has warnings for BELIEVERS not just unbelievers. Saints can't fall from a faith they never had and it is not acceptable to teach a doctrine that is not affected by putting white out over most of the verses on the topic. The problem with OSAS isn't the "always saved" part. It is the "always saved" while I continue in sin part. It is the lack of conditions because of their false understanding of what grace is and how it works. Saints are ALWAYS SAVED as we ABIDE in Christ.

[@arenonebetter]

I guess you have much to boast! about @@JAGChristianos

[@seanbrenon]

I don’t actually think the Calvinist position is that God controls man’s will. It’s more like man’s will always chooses sin. God doesn’t have to control our will because our will is enslaved to sin.

[@amanueltagesse4550]

Justin: tries to explain Molinism WLC: "That was very close, Justin"

[@castanedamusic1578]

😂😂😂

[@adamduarte895]

Like a professor haha

[@binsonthomas2158]

Justin, summarises what WLC just said.. WLC, recognising how wrong the simple presentation of his position sounds, says... "That was very close"

[@malvokaquila6768]

WLC "I give you an E for effort"

[@crisscaseflows]

Brilliant 🤣🤣🤣

[@ericcollins6231]

Would like to commend Dr. Craig for consistently staying on topic, articulating his position as an answer to the debate question rather than just trying to defame the opposing position and go on the attack. He exemplified the qualities of love, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control. Effectively he exhibited the fruits of he spirit.

[@donaldmonzon1774]

I agree Craig has a very good demeanor...I think white was less than admiral , he often mis characterizes his opponents viewpoint

[@andreahintz5094]

WLC is a class act. I respect and admire the heck out of that guy!

[@bradleyadams9430]

I have never heard anyone better than WLC at using a massive amount of words to say nothing. It seems to work for him with a lot of people I guess.

[@ericcollins6231]

@@bradleyadams9430 If that is the case, you must not listen to a lot academically trained philosophers in general. Broadly speaking philosophers have a tendency to be verbose and nuanced in their speech - for good reason. But this level of complication, especially in the analytic side, can make it hard to follow. And perhaps, by not being able to understand it, one is left feeling as if nothing was said at all.

[@bradleyadams9430]

@@ericcollins6231 or it's just some dude that don't know, probably can't know, just running their heads with a lot of words (to try and sound superior. Works on you I guess) to make a point that could be summed up in one short sentence because they are so arrogant that they believe they literally speak for God instead of saying "I don't know". I am a human and couldn't possibly have a complete understanding of a being that could create a universe full of life". If there is a God you probably shouldn't be blaspheming or bearing false witness tho lol.

[@paulfoor7388]

I cannot believe this debate is happening. I have wrestled with Calvinism for at least 5 years and love both of these guys. And I couldn't think of a more perfect host for this debate than Unbelievable. Thank you for making this happen.

[@TheApologeticDog]

definitely!!

[@flowbrandz316]

Check out Open Theism

[@paulfoor7388]

@@flowbrandz316 i have. Open theism violates God's omniscience, unless he chooses to limit his own knowledge. But i have never seen any scriptural basis for that

[@paulfoor7388]

@@CapsFan082892 yeah I checked out Leighton flowers he's a great guy has a lot of good content. Haha I love all these guys. Just as a random recommendation you guys should check out Mike Winger and Chuck Missler

[@samdavila3618]

I also think Dr. Michael Brown did a great job debating Dr. White back in the day about this same subject.

[@TherealOmniMan]

WLC was being very nice here. He usually goes scorched earth and intellectually annihilates his opponents. This is brotherly love being shown by Craig.

[@KyleCombes]

I like to think I'm theologically smart, and then I listen to Bill and James, and realize I have so much more to learn

[@deliberativedisciple]

"Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies." "For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" "I am wiser than all my teachers, because I think about your rules. I have more understanding than the elders, because I follow your orders."

[@LEUNN_]

@@deliberativedisciple yet promoting theological ignorance is probably the most anti bible thing you could promote

[@firingallcylinders2949]

Welcome to the Dunning Kruger effect lol

[@Mr_A1-37]

Yeah, it’s an annoying trait I see with those invested in theology. They’re constantly placing themselves on the same pedestal they came down from just a few days ago lol…

[@deliberativedisciple]

@@LEUNN_ How deeply do I need to study the opinions of the rabbis in the Talmud? Isn't that an amazing amount of "theological" knowledge?

[@firstnamelastname2552]

I'm honestly shocked at this. I really thought WLC was never going to debate James White. This is a huge deal. ( I know it's not a formal debate. You don't have to tell me this.)

[@mystery6411]

He stopped debating fellow christians because the other christians he debated weren't so charitable. So he doesn't wanna expose those christian debaters no more. But yeah, this happened.

[@philippaul6039]

Agreed. And honestly I don't think they've had a "formal debate" yet XD This was definitely a step in that direction but I'd consider this a formal interview/interaction. We've all seen James/Craig in their formal debates with muslims/atheists. That's what I think we're all hoping for. This was a bit casual for me, still glad they did it though.

[@jonathansoko1085]

Whats ironic is that they were very kind to each other but the FANS of both men are in VERY different "tribes" and are already TEARING each other apart.

[@manseth3]

@@BobSmith-eq9vs who is that?

[@tjs.5044]

@@jonathansoko1085 Very true! To be honest I don't see the militant James White fans, as a James White fan myself but I tend to hear about them a lot from others. Its a shame but this is an issue EVERYWHERE on the internet, real shame it has to plague theological discussion as well. Molinists and Leighton Flowers fans in my expirience tend to be extremeley nasty and hostile especially toward Calvinists. They'll go as far as to say we worship a false god and outright insult us inplace of meaningful arguments.

[@missionsbibleministry]

Re-watching this and I can't help but notice how JW keeps on begging the question. He (unknowingly?) pleads special treatment for his view on sovereignty. I'm surprised how he appeals to the recency of the Calvinistic theological model against Molinism, when he knows early Christians did not hold to theistic determinism? That they were actually against it. His argument lies on what he calls a "delimitating authority", and trying to make sense of his position he does indeed commit a fallacy in assuming that the counterfactual truths require a "maker". Counterfactuals if we understand that Logic flows from God (cf. Geisler), are truths that we can attribute to the facts/truths that's rooted in the very non-contradicting logic of God, in consideration of His determination to create free creatures. Thus, there's no need for a direct "maker" of the counterfactual truths. James also never addressed the issue thrown that Calvinism's logical implications (and some plainly admit) is that God is the author of evil (which is completely unbiblical and even blasphemous). He neither defended it nor affirmed it, he simply ignored it. The closest that he came to addressing it is reading from the Westminster Confession. James' argument is just not sound and I think WLC went easy on him really out of brotherly love. I'm surprised that some think JW did well on this conversation.

[@laurenelkins4775]

Agreed.

[@joshuastateham]

Indeed. White seems to believe his view is uniquely and directly derived from scripture rather than deduced from it when in fact both views are deduced. He simply is not aware of or acknowledging his bias while Craig does. I agree that this was a debate which was quite clearly "won" by William Lane Craig. White was more agitated, dogmatic, and guilty of logical fallacies.

[@ttshiroma]

Please throw your hats in and debate Dr White on your critique of his assertions with Calvinism? I believe there is a very fine line that separates the two theists in their views regarding defining moral certitude of their established theological values. I love WLC and listen to most of his debates (If not all) but I believe JW did very well in this debate between two powerhouse theologians!!!! Proving, Establishing and attempting to know and present the characteristics of GOD is I believe is beyond man's abilities. Faith in Jesus is all we need!!! Blessings.

[@gingrai00]

Is it possible that God could create creatures with libertarian freedom… creatures that could freely decide say, to get up early or sleep in or who could in a certain situation sin or refrain from sinning? If the answer to this question is “yes” then either God has middle knowledge or Open Theism is true. White has not thought this through and does not understand the discussion… he would, of course, disagree but there is a real blindness problem in some who, though able to see, refuse to open their eyes.

[@javariusjavarlamariuslamar3759]

@@gingrai00 hit the nail on the head. White is too prideful to open his eyes.

[@TyranBatten]

Man, just watching this again and it really makes me wish WLC would do more "in house" debates. Whenever he does, he performs so well and it's fascinating to see the dialogue between two brothers who hold very different theological positions.

[@kevinteichroeb6997]

I am a Molinist, not a Calvinist. but I'm so thankful for both these men and for this discussion. I'm willing to have my mind changed, and I am listening very carefully to Dr White because of his clear thought and committed position. Thank you both, all three of you, in fact.

[@jonroise2487]

I think an honest Molinist is calvanist enough for me ;)

[@kevinteichroeb6997]

@R H Evans I'm sorry. The question appears to me to be skewed. It's almost like one of those, "When did you stop beating your wife?" questions.

[@Jockito]

@@kevinteichroeb6997 Are you saying you don't serve the Lord Jesus Christ as your master?

[@pioneerfaithministries9746]

@CJ Baierl lol

[@NoName-rs1sg]

@@Jockito So your line of reasoning is IF God is in fact real and IF that God is Jesus Christ (meaning he would be the source and master of ALL THINGS) Than that would make Gods relationship with man akin to the relationship between a slave master and his slaves? IF Jesus Christ is God than wouldn't you be as much of a slave even if you don't worship him? If he's real you can't escape him his existing isn't contingent on your feelings being hurt. Nice try though.

[@dnglbry1]

After watching two articulate well educated men pontificate the mystery of evil and why God has allowed its existence and sufferings, Romans 11:33-34 came poignantly to mind. The good news is that scripture assures us that evil is only temporary.1 John 3:8...Hallelujah to the Lamb!!!!! Cheers and blessing to everyone!!!!

[@garyjames9445]

I would have put this on my top five most heavily anticipated debates. This had to happen between Calvinism and Molinism; between Craig and White. I'm thankful for Justin.

[@davidanful]

I have been a calvinist all my life but after listening to Dr. Craig‘s arguments and how it solves the divine dilemma, molinism makes way more sense

[@streetwisepioneers4470]

🎯 You are a wise, genuine, caring, sincere and self-a-facing being, who clearly recognises OBJECTIVE TRUTH when it comes a calling....I know it's hard to accept but if anyone can do it YOU CAN. 👏🏿 That's simply how I feel about it. 1💗 Only the best! 🪞

[@dodo_berg1230]

(It was predetermined thst you would become a molinist)

[@thomasc9036]

Are you sure you understand Calvinism?

[@dodo_berg1230]

@@thomasc9036 he was predestined not to understand calvinism

[@flyingmax9029]

It’s official. I am not an intellectual. I just know that if somehow by some miracle I’d end up in heaven I’d be pretty upset that some of my fellows were sent to hell (I’d also be a bit miffed if I ended up in hell).

[@dequelen801]

Thanks to Justin for taking those subtle pauses through the debate, just to break it down for the audience. True professional

[@joecross3708]

Both of these men influenced my Christian walk greatly in the 1990’s. Good to see them together to wrestle through a very complicated issue, even if from different perspectives.

[@chrismachin2166]

Both of these men influenced my Christian walk (became a Christian at 61) in the last six years- until I started understanding Biblical revelation,then I realised only one of them preached the Truth.

[@josephgarrett3075]

@@chrismachin2166 Which one do you believe preached(es) the Truth??

[@bobatl4990]

I agree Joe and they both influenced me as well.

[@jwatson181]

@Chris Machin Thank goodness you listen to WLC. Why would anyone want God to be the author of evil like James White?

[@josephgarrett3075]

@@jwatson181 He didn't say which one he listened too yet ;) On a serious note- why are you being dishonest brother and falsely accusing James White of wanting God to be the author of evil??

[@d0g_0f_Christ0s]

As a displaced Arminian who's got 18 months of Reformed stuff integrating itself into my 'Ologyisms', this has been an invaluable discussion I've had the privilege to listen to. Thank you Dr White & Dr Craig for showing me I'm not the only one searching for the real 'real'. To God be all the glory, whose ways are far higher than ours, whose understanding reaches far beyond our definition of understanding as we understand it; in Christ Jesus may we joyfully endure the dying of the 'old man' long enough to reach the life Jesus died to give us, by his grace alone may we love one another for his name's sake. Thank you again.

[@jmcasado00]

Amen

[@KEP1983]

If you've checked out Arminianism and Calvinism, and are still searching for the real "real," I'd point you to look into what the Catholic Church *actually* teaches. It's not what your Protestant pastor or theologian says it is, btw. I used to be a big fan of James White, and loved his arguments against Catholic theology. Then I actually read them for myself and was shocked how much he and others misrepresented them. The first example, going back to the original reformers, is that Catholic teaching actually states that we can't earn our salvation. In fact, Catholic theology teaches that humans aren't even capable of performing ANY good works from our own human nature, let alone performing good works to earn salvation. That's just a basic one, and there's a lot more.

[@buzzbbird]

@@KEP1983 LMBO

[@jmcasado00]

@@KEP1983 Catholicism teaches that your salvation is definitely based on works. What you said doesn't seem true.

[@thiagocesar2749]

@@KEP1983 is it April 1st?

[@robg6984]

I was not baptized into Calvin or Arminias or Molina. I've leaned toward Calvinism, and the church I worship at and love is led by Calvinist pastors who are passionate godly men. I have always struggled with the irresistible grace and limited atonement aspects of Calvinism. I do believe my salvation is all of God, and my sin is all of me. I've never found the arguments for Calvinistic determinism not making God the author of evil convincing. R.C. Sproul Jr. has said that God is the author/creator of sin, and i find that view abhorrent. At the end of the day, i find Molinism's position on middle knowledge compelling in that it gives God all the glory for my salvation and makes me responsible for my sin. I know i am an ignorant fool who can not comprehend the mind of God, and there are undoubtedly things i get wrong. That is why i will continue to strive to know and love and worship Him more and, in the end, put all my faith in Jesus.

[@TheConor43]

Great comment Rob. May God preserve you until the trumpet sounds ✝️

[@cliffordhewitt4525]

Run from calvinism.....it's a lie out of the pits of HELL....and GOD CERTAINLY did NOT create sin....Satan and man did that all on there own when THEY CHOSE to sin...and the BLOOD JESUS shed was and us for ALL sin for ALL time....GOD is not slack as some men count slack ness but is long-suffering to us not WILLING that ANY should perish but that ALL would come to repentance ...for all that come to me I will in no wise cast out....JESUS said Jerusalem, Jerusalem how many times would I have gathered thee like a hen under her wings, BUT YOU would not.....GOD created NO man ot woman so that he could cast them into the lake of fire ....I don't care what doctor bottle stopper says I will believe GOD'S WORD....THANKS

[@nadalineL]

Great comment. This is exactly how I feel too. Molinism while not perfect is at least a possible puzzle piece to the paradox sovereignty vs free will. I too want to remain humble in the fact that God’s way is higher than mine.

[@Mathetesofscripture]

Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things". Job 1:6-12: The devil only does what God permits Lamentations 3:37-38: Both good things and calamities come from the mouth of the Most High Zephaniah 1:12: God will punish those who say in their heart, "The LORD will not do good, nor will he do evil" Proverbs 16:4: "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble"

[@twijjukyeanan]

​@@MathetesofscriptureMy dear friend we can all gather various proof texts to back up what we are saying ..we need to put them in a coherent framework that makes appropriate use of the entire context of Scripture

[@6.0hhh]

It's about time this happens! No matter who you like, you have to admit that this will be interesting and that they should definitely do an informal, in person debate. Maybe several of them. Glad Craig finally agreed to do this.

[@opendebate7414]

I hope they do a serious debate on this issue because at 40:19 he really completely dismissed what James had just said and goes on a rant over hypercalvinism which James and everyone who is calvinist don't even believe in. James just literally quoted the westminster and spoke about secondary causes...explaining how Joseph's brothers weren't puppets. God simply decreed that they would freely chose according to their nature willingly without as the westminster puts it ''making violence to the will''. Then William basically argues that calvinism makes Joseph's brothers puppets. I was astonished about this answer I mean, there was absolutely no answer to what James had actually said. I felt like William did not ever read any serious reformed calvinistic literature at all. I appreciate the guy but I was very disapointed.

[@dbkoala]

Thank you to Justin, his team, Dr. White, and Dr. Craig for taking the time to have this discussion. This was helpful.

[@omnitheus5442]

Mr White you mean. He never actually completed/earned a post grad yet. He got that title from a two bit seminary for his work on translation committees lol. Might as well call politicians and athletes doctors with honoraries too...

[@dbkoala]

@@omnitheus5442 you’re not the greatest example of grace. You actually sound sad and petty.

[@justinmayfield6579]

@@omnitheus5442 I have no stake in defending James, but worrying about the merit of the title “Dr.” is to be more concerned with social custom than actual study and ability. After all, the whole prestige of earning a doctorate is based in a system where other doctors deem you a doctor (after completing much arbitrary coursework that funds the system as well as relevant research), but who made the first doctors doctors? There are plenty of ignorant people with doctorates running around and plenty of drop-out geniuses.

[@jankoekemoer6034]

@@omnitheus5442 Man you are just the example of brotherly love the world needs. Well done brother.

[@alexz2702]

Dang I'm 30 mins in and this is the most high tier debate I've ever seen. I watch a lot of debates and my head is hurting! Great, great stuff.

[@timothybrigance610]

I feel that. Lol!

[@saulgoo2334]

My favorite debates are the Jerry Walls Calvinism debate, and the Monster God debate with Brian Zahnd and Michael Brown.

[@cosmictreason2242]

@@saulgoo2334consider the bahnsen Stein debate (remaster only. Audio is terrible midway through the original)

[@conot4006]

I'm sure Calvinists have their reasons but I've always thought the idea god elects some to go to hell before they are even born is the exact opposite god I find in the Bible.

[@AsaShearin]

John 17:9 eph. 1:4

[@NationalPK]

@@AsaShearingo listen to a non Calvinistic exegesis.. it makes a lot more sense

[@BenjaminKerr-yj4gs]

Nope God elects people to go to heaven. he didn’t pick people out to go to hell, he elected people to go to heaven. And people might say “that’s not fair he picked a couple people out to go to heaven” nope if it was fair we’d all be on our way to Hell.

[@nosh-kami]

@BenjaminKerr-yj4gs But if what White says is true, that God determines all actions, including evil ones, then human choices aren't truly free. I definitely understand where you're coming from in saying it would be fair for us all to be on our way to Hell, if God did not elect some. However, if He determines all actions, including the evil actions that people perform, then there really is no way around it: God becomes the author of evil. This, unfortunately, also means that God ordains acts such as child abuse and the Holocaust. James never answers this in the video, though it was asked. Human moral responsibility crumbles at this point. If God chooses what each person is going to do, then how can we be held responsible for it? The only way the "nope if it was fair we'd all be on our way to Hell" works (which puts the responsibility on all humans) is if we humans actually have some sort of free will. Otherwise, it just dodges the matter at hand. Furthermore, many of the verses White mentions in his support of a more Calvinist soteriology only make sense if you don't weigh them together with the countless other parts of Scripture that seem to contest it. Even though I do believe people do sincere, plain readings of those Scriptures, we have to consider them all together; the big picture. I should be clear, I'm not exactly a Molinist, but I would align more with that soteriology than the Calvinist approach. I hope this was helpful. I'm not very good at this stuff, but I've been sincerely digging into these topics lately and just wanted to share my perspective.

[@ChillinwithMarq]

This conversation was Incredibly fruitful. Thank you brother for getting these debates together. It’s always a delight to see people sharing their perspectives/views without being disrespectful.

[@jackpuskar6439]

I agree. How refreshing is it to have a debate where the positions are attacked/defended, rather than the speakers themselves.

[@rybr5423]

James's facial expressions were far from polite and he commited a blatant genetic fallacy when it came to the origins of molinism.

[@pixmma9627]

@@rybr5423 okay thank goodness someone else noticed.

[@oracleoftroy]

@@rybr5423 Just a reminder, people, calling Molina one of the greatest theologians ever: not genetic fallacy. Saying Molina isn't one of the greatest theologians ever, genetic fallacy. In other words, its only a fallacy if the guy you are rooting against is doing it.

[@olaoluwaelijah6154]

very very funny

[@DJRoll15]

Very interesting debate. Wish James white actually tried to defend the claims against him about the idea of God causing evil. I also wish WLC used more scripture to defend his idea, which I know there is but he mostly used philosophy.

[@timbushong4387]

It's because Molinism isn't dependent on Scripture.

[@logosgaming1987]

@@timbushong4387 except it is. Craig addressed that in the beginning. God is sovereign while man is also 100% accountable. It’s still odd to me that it’s even a debate.

[@DJRoll15]

@@timbushong4387 well I disagree as I said in my original comment.

[@deesteven]

@@logosgaming1987 Determinism has verses that are not a stretch to exegete regarding God's will Ephesians 1:11, Acts 2:23, Romans 9: 14-23 is really right there to exegete in this way.. But Molinism doesn't have such verses to exegete regarding God's will...it just doesn't. So, starting from God's word, it is literally impossible to draw out Molinism.. it is simply a plausible theory of a Christian, not a direct attempt to draw from Scripture or exegete

[@macksonamission1784]

In 1 Samuel 23:7-13, God foreknows two counterfacturals that ultimately never take place because David acts on this "middle" knowledge of sorts to get the heck out of dodge. Now if David can act on middle knowledge, surely the LORD can.

[@sammieeg1592]

Regardless of who wins this debate/discussion, we know this is going to be a highly interesting and informative discussion, hopefully this is the first of many!!

[@mostlybones_]

Enjoying the discussion. I have read a majority of WLC's works and enjoyed them thoroughly. My issue with WLC's statements about free will is this: God exists in and out of time - He is the only constant. The moment He spoke reality into existence (Gen 1:1), He also spoke reality to its completion (Rev 22:20). The story was finished the moment it began. God knew every structure at the atomic level and every moment that would happen - according to His will. God has a priori knowledge (spiritual) of every a posteriori (temporal) event. If it was/is allowed, it was deemed so at the moment of creation. We are not experiencing events in the same manner as God, and we attempt to place ourselves at the center of His story. We have the end of the story (Rev 22:20). The conversations we are having about are all known by God since the beginning.

[@dum4197]

If I understood your point correctly I would ask whether foreknowledge is the same as causing the subsequent event if you know what I mean. How everything started and ended was according to His will because we simply cannot change the base structure that he's put in place, but we can change our behaviour and desire and direction we will move and subsequently be for eternity. I hope I haven't completely missed your point here but I just wanted to share some of my thoughts on it because its super interesting to discuss.

[@mostlybones_]

@@dum4197 Thank you for replying. I appreciate it very much. Hope this may clarify for the conversation: From the perspective of God that I believe (Reformed Theology), God is sovereign in all aspects within (temporal) and outside (spiritual) of creation. My argument is that if we believe that God is: Omniscient (all-knowing), Omnipresent (existing at all places at all times), Omnipotent (unending power and unceasing will), then the question follows - Did/Does God know every measure of everything He created and its intended result? Any answer but yes removes an attribute mentioned previously from God. Another way to phrase it is: As the Bible tells us, He is the author of faith, meaning that everything to Him is foreknown by His "pen." - would an author create without knowing the creation's role in the story? If His will must be done, then surely someone would have to carry it out in the temporal by His divine providence. If not, then the story would be open-ended and subject to change based on the creation's will, not the Author's. God is not reactionary. We live out in real-time (temporal) the story that was finished before He created the Heavens and the Earth. We see countless times when agents of God claim that He appointed them before they were born. Though I don't mean it as a flippant answer, I usually say - someone had to be Judas, and to think otherwise would place us in a position of thinking that God did not know.

[@auggiebendoggy]

So does God act differently out of time as he does in time? If God loves a babe the moment he's born so much that if that babe should die as an infant God welcomes that Babe into his (God's) Kingdom, does his love endure forever for that babe? Suppose now that God knows if that babe should live and grow to be Adolph Hitler, does God's love for that babe change based on that middle knowledge?

[@isaiahceasarbie5318]

To paraphrase a familiar William Lane Craig quote: The man who does not realize that he’s likewise doing philosophy is the one most apt to be fooled by philosophy.

[@castanedamusic1578]

100% agree.

[@logosgaming1987]

Nailed it.

[@AnthonyThomason14]

Very true.

[@trevoradams3702]

This is the irony of all these people in the comments saying, “one guy was biblical while one was philosophical”.

[@Luiz__Silva]

Well, it depends on what you mean by philosophy. Philosophy in the general sense is not the same as forcing one specific philosophical method.

[@oshanelee560]

This was an epic debate between two theological giants. We need more of these discussions.

[@rtgray7]

Craig is a giant for sure. White has manipulated his minions into believing that he is...

[@jesuschristsaves9067]

The only thing giant about about white is his ego.

[@drazenkekovic3012]

White isn’t a giant. He’s a poser. His “Dr.” title comes from unaccredited programs.

[@andrewscotteames4718]

White is a theological giant?

[@andrewscotteames4718]

@@drazenkekovic3012 That explains SO much! I have listened to this guy off and on for years and wondered how he could have a PhD or ThD and understand so little of the positions with which he disagrees.

[@HainishMentat]

Did anyone hear James say how God is not the author of evil on Calvinism? He was asked repeatedly. Did he ever give an answer? I'm asking genuinely.

[@benjamincase1427]

He did answer but was summarily ignored; I think he knew he would be ignored and that there were better things for him to do than to spend all of his time defending what had already been addressed. He explained that the Reformed position recognizes God's use of secondary causes in the existence of evil. He further explained that the Molinist position has to deal with the same problem, with the added caveat that there's some foreign power that's not derived from God's nature that's powerful enough and authoritative enough to limit Him. He also said several times that scripture teaches that God restrains people's wickedness. But the greater part of his focus was on his point that it's not enough for an explanation for the existence of evil to be consistent with scripture, but that it must actually be drawn from scripture, i e. God's explanation must be our explanation as opposed to our explanation simply fitting into His.

[@HainishMentat]

@@benjamincase1427 _He did answer but was summarily ignored; I think he knew he would be ignored and that there were better things for him to do than to spend all of his time defending what had already been addressed._ I’m sorry I missed it. I was listening for it each time, and I genuinely did not hear an answer. _He explained that the Reformed position recognizes God's use of secondary causes in the existence of evil. He further explained that the Molinist position has to deal with the same problem, with the added caveat that there's some foreign power that's not derived from God's nature that's powerful enough and authoritative enough to limit Him. He also said several times that scripture teaches that God restrains people's wickedness. But the greater part of his focus was on his point that it's not enough for an explanation for the existence of evil to be consistent with scripture, but that it must actually be drawn from scripture, i e. God's explanation must be our explanation as opposed to our explanation simply fitting into His._ I mean this with the utmost respect, but I don’t see an answer in what you said either. You mentioned “secondary causes” (which White also mentioned) and then moved on to other matters (e.g. that Molinism has the same problem + another issue, that God restrains people’s wickedness, etc.). That's what White seemed to do too.... Is pointing to the mere existence of secondary causes a complete answer in your opinion? Is the full answer to the problem of God freely willing and acting to produce evil that He doesn’t produce it directly, but just causes us to will it and to act on our willing of it?

[@benjamincase1427]

@@HainishMentat I'm sorry, you're right. I should probably have explained secondary causes. The Reformed position holds that while evil itself is indeed evil, God ordained (passively) that it should exist to display the fullness of His glory upon vessels prepared beforehand for glory (i.e. the elect). So, while God is not the author of evil, he ordained that evil exist so he can display his attributes which would otherwise not have been displayed, such as his justice, wrath, righteousness, grace, and mercy, and that those whom He saves may praise Him and enjoy Him forever in light of this revelation. But God cannot commit evil. John says that there is no darkness in Him whatsoever. So God ordained that Adam introduce sin into the world. Adam was the secondary cause that God used to introduce evil into the world without He Himself authoring it. That's what is meant by secondary cause.

[@HainishMentat]

@@benjamincase1427 So, if God causes Adam to desire sin and carry it out, God is not the author of evil? I don't understand that. If I had the power to make a person want things, and I freely made them want an evil thing, am I not the source of the evil act that follows? I am not a Molinist, by the way. But, it seems to me that Molinism has a clear way out of this problem, while the Calvinist does not seem to. That's why I was hoping White would drill down to the nitty-gritty on how exactly the Calvinist view deals with this.

[@macksonamission1784]

@@benjamincase1427 How does one passively ordain exactly. One cannot passively perform any transitive verb. One can only passively undergo or experience or suffer the actions of another.

[@cliffphotographs]

This is fascinating to me… I distinctly remember having a conversation four years ago where I tried to put into my own words a description of how God interacts with humans and carries out His will without impeding or pre-determining our free choice. Fast forward to today, and I learn that it’s called Molinism! This concept/perspective deeply rings true with my heart and mind. I will definitely be looking into this further and wrestling with what God is revealing through His Word, as well as through people like Craig. Thank you for making this discussion happen!

[@hollon1697]

Whatever you believe about WLC, he is a very polite and warm participant in this exchange.

[@januddin8068]

He’s also correct. White could be reading from the Quran how he lands

[@EricHernandez]

I got excited thinking this was the actual episode. Cannot wait! I praise God that he chose to actualize a world in which this happened!

[@danivedis]

Come on, you were decreed before the foundation of the world to post this comment... hold on does that mean that mine too? :S

[@TheApologeticDog]

w0w hahahahha

[@gingrai00]

Determined… 🤪

[@jrgunter23]

You should do a recap on your channel once this airs

[@tex959]

Eric! my fav. apologist. How will these guys survive heaven unless they can sit on fluffy clouds and argue about free will or evolution? You're too humble for this field.

[@theologymatters5127]

Thanks to Bill Craig. His willingness to speak into these matters is such a blessing to the church. James as well but I just can't be won over by Calvinism.

[@horrificpleasantry9474]

Be won over by the Bible instead, then when you realize Calvinism is just a shorthand label, it's easier to confess it

[@chrissymonds1845]

do you agree with Molinism? This is an important point. You may not agree with Calvinism but the alternative, Molininism, is that a more or less reasonable view?

[@theologymatters5127]

Ya, I'm in no way convinced by Calvinism. At all. I lean more toward molinism but also realize that this topic is heavily nuanced and I simply can't engage in this topic the way I'd like. That's why I appreciate Craig. He does a great job explaining it

[@horrificpleasantry9474]

@@theologymatters5127 I recommend reading Herman bavinck's treatise on supralapsarianism v infralapsarianism to get a better handle on the issue of molinism v Calvinism. It's helpful to see how God interacts with time, which is fundamentally the thing at issue between these views, and also arminianism and open Theism

[@theologymatters5127]

@@horrificpleasantry9474 Thanks for the input. I will most definitely put that book on my list

[@richyxiong3062]

Love it! WLC is my man. Love his godly wisdom and humility. Thank God for such a brother!

[@miller8084]

I am a reformed pastor who has been for some 30 years and this was helpful to frame the issue in a general way. I would encourage looking at his issue through the lens of our spiritual capacity or ability to better arrive at a more helpful conclusion. I appreciate both men and I particularly appreciate the winsome and gracious approach of WLC. I respect James White and have even had him in our church, but the snarky approach and lack of grace at times are off-putting. WLC final point of consistency with Scripture and how there are many doctrines that are not explicit in the Word and yet have been embraced by Reformed thinkers was a solid and sound retort to James. There are times in which Reformed people are so enshrined in their own echo chamber that they lose perspective of the value and quality of other sincere views of the workings of God.

[@surafielabetew9147]

@Dan Miller You’re spot on! Enjoyed the debate, and even more I enjoyed WLC gracious approach. I really appreciate James White contribution to the body of Christ, but I don’t really like the way he dealt/approached with WLC.

[@Sgman1991]

What's an example of reformed theology that can't be founded in scripture? The examples given by WLC surely can! They didn't come from external philosophy and get applies to the scripture. They flowed from greater discussion and analysis of the scripture. That's the main difference between the two. Molinism takes external philosophy that finds no place in scripture and looks at scripture through that lens. Calvinism, instead, take scripture in full and makes philosophical conclusions and extrapolations from it.

[@PaDutchRunner]

@@Sgman1991 Agree!

[@djm7038]

James lacks a gracious spirit - making faces, etc.

[@tswwow]

Don’t fall into the fallacy of ad hominem. The spirit something is said in has no bearing on if what was said is true or false, scriptural or lies.

[@rickwalston735]

I don't think this is about "who wins" (as one person commented) but, rather, about giving an explanation of two opposing systems of thought on the subject of man's will in relation to God's sovereignty and how that plays out within the issue of moral evil. This they both did very well. I appreciate both men and count them as brothers in Christ.

[@Jockito]

Except that at least one of these systems of thought is incorrect bibical teaching and thus heretical.

[@mattvanderford4920]

I’m with you. Although I expected to see white be a little more biblical based and crag more philosophical based. Just off my experience with the two. And yet they both did a pretty good job. I will say James did build a case for the biblical that crag almost left unchecked until the very end. It was pretty informative.

[@adammitchell0621]

Props to the moderator for keeping the discussion on topic and the points clear.

[@connordolence520]

Seems a bit hubristic to me that James White can say that Molinism is an external ideology that WLC is backwards applying to scripture but then turn around and say that Calvinism isn’t the same thing? Both of these thought systems are in the same category: theological frameworks that attempt to make sense of scriptural data. For White to say that Calvinism is exempt from this label and that it is 100% scripturally evident is simply a claim with no objective evidence from scripture. He came across as very intellectually close minded and dishonest here.

[@CoachEgg]

You can arrive at the tenets of Calvinism by reading the Bible. You have to have Molinism explained to you

[@nadalineL]

@@CoachEgg So …I had to have the trinity explained to me too

[@hiswill-r122]

@@CoachEgg false. You cannot objectively read the Bible and arrive at the tenets of Calvinism without it being framed in that view. Not even Calvin reached his conclusions by objectively reading scripture. He borrowed and misinterpreted much of St. Augustine's work on predestination to develop this system.

[@PLATOLOSOPHY]

Such a great conversation. As a History/ Philosophy double major who was born again after three years of research, these types of conversations help me lead me to a denomination. It’s hard for me to not believe in free will.

[@mosart7025]

@@Nunya1387 I hope you will keep reading the Bible and praying for answers. I can't imagine the emptiness of life without God...

[@timothydavis1885]

@@Nunya1387 I'd love to dialogue with you! Of course I have the ulterior motive of getting you to become a Christian!

[@joelfields9807]

@@Nunya1387 I'm not a Calvinist but I am a Christian. The good news is that you don't have to subscribe to either of these views to have a very real and joyful relationship with Jesus Christ you place your full trust in the fact that he deeply loves you and died on the cross for you and rose from the grave. I'm praying you will find the hope and joy in Christ that God desires for you God bless!

[@davidhanlon1158]

I lean toward Calvinism. There is free willl but sinners will always freely choose sin. Christ said anyone who sins is a slave to sin. Paul said in Ephesians you were dead in you sins and transgressions. Prior to Christ none of us were good no not one. Often free willers will throw out Joshua saying choose this day whom you shall serve. Well what happened. They continued in their sin. You do not have to be a Calvinist to be a Christian or saved. For most of my Christian life I was a Armenian

[@WayneFocus]

@@davidhanlon1158 Freely choosing sin makes no sense. It's a Calvinist made up argument to try and get round the fact that the God Calvinists present is determining every action you will ever take. So whichever way you slice it you are not freely choosing sin, you have been determined to sin. If you are freely choosing to sin then you are not truly free. The Calvinist system of thought has to change the clear meaning of scripture to fit what they believe

[@tarchiatech949]

Thanks Dr White and Dr Craig for the fascinating discussion. Couldn't wait to see such great scholars discuss such an amazing topic.

[@NeilJohnsonHXC]

I love gracious disagreements among brothers. The winsomeness I've witnessed in these two in other arenas really has me hopeful and excited for how they might build each other up in this discussion instead of producing division.

[@av8orCH-47]

Perhaps we watched different debates. White was anything except gracious. He mocked Craig, laughing and rolling his eyes at every turn.

[@Sdothull]

Fantastic debate! Love them both. Great knowledge here

[@samuelvanpeursem2865]

I found it frustrating that James White really didn’t answer the question of how God is not the author of evil within Calvinism. He sidestepped it the whole debate

[@mosespsalm_1108]

He said God decreed evil but isn’t the immediate author of evil and this is scriptural

[@jonathanhauhnar8434]

Theistic compatibalism...but I do not believe it worked...

[@Ironica82]

He did a few times but because it wasn't a small, simple answer, it flew over most people's heads.

[@danielmann5427]

@@jonathanhauhnar8434 well do you believe the infallible inerrant revealed word of God? I reckon you don't .

[@lightburning9693]

@@mosespsalm_1108 Call me simple but, I would think, decreeing and authoring are somewhat synonymous.

[@joshsimon4109]

I love the dialogue and arguments. I did find the idea that, before Molina gave a nuanced description of the belief, it wouldn't be possible for anyone to have the belief. My mom who is not an intellectual and has never even heard of Molinism expressed the idea of Molinism to me as a child. It is only the high intellectual who needs express definitions to have real understanding.

[@logosgaming1987]

When I was a kid I had the understanding that God decreed things, yet also man freely chose things. I just didn’t know what was called Molinism. It isn’t the intellectually elite that this is reserved for. It just helps to have language to succinctly explain those principles that we all have access to.

[@RandomBLACKman]

@@logosgaming1987 The Easter Bunny, Santa, and Modalism were real to me as a child too.

[@jacobforaker6222]

Your use of an ad hominem to make a point, that makes no sense if you actually think, shows your lack of understanding of these topics. Go study instead of arguing online.

[@andrewtaylor1737]

@@RandomBLACKman I love it. 1 Corinthians 13:11 [11]When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

[@joshsimon4109]

@@jacobforaker6222 Not an argument, just a simple anecdotal musing on the idea that someone could not understand a concept if that concept does not have a name or has not yet been expressed succinctly and fully by another. My comment has nothing to do with Molinism or Calvinism. As for the "attacking of the person" I have great respect for both of these men I have learned so much from them. I was speaking to a personality, that I myself have, and the pitfalls that are more easily found whith that personality. The more I have learned the more and more I am humbled and I offer a sincere apology for the perceived attack and failure at language.

[@PiousParable]

WOOOWWWW I'm a HUGE fan of Dr. White AND Dr. Craig. This is what happens when an unstoppable bullet meets an unpenetrable wall.

[@nooncecares]

I am really looking forward to this

[@eastonm.7495]

Same, I am literally way too excited for this😂

[@theoffensivegamer9943]

Have you ever heard white talk about calvinism? Dude's super intellectually dishonest . Might not call him an unstoppable wall

[@juilianbautista4067]

@@theoffensivegamer9943 Have you ever heard Craig talk about creationism? Dude's super intellectually dishonest. Might not call him an unstoppable bullet. See how that works? Don't poison the well. Watch the debate before jumping to conclusions. Don't be that WLC fanboy who bullies anyone who disagrees with Pope William (and I know, the same rebuke must be delivered to cage-stage Calvinists, but cage-stage behavior isn't a Calvinist exclusive).

[@theoffensivegamer9943]

@@juilianbautista4067 lol sure... We square on that one. But when it comes to his Molinism and calvinism he is very straight forward. His defenders class prove this. How he speaks about calvinism even made me think he was a calvinist

[@CathyMikulus-dv6pl]

Very interesting discussion. It's great that they're kind and respectful to each other.

[@icedventi]

“That’s because you’re a determinist.” WLC Best part of the discussion.

[@Sgman1991]

I can't understand how Molinism isn't also determinist. Middle knowledge determines how people will act before any person is created and able to make a free choice. God then determines which of those truth statements about 'free' decisions are going to be instantiated. It's all determined before the first creative word of God ever happens.

[@dustymar4341]

God has declared the end from the beginning.

[@l-cornelius-dol]

@@Sgman1991 : I think the difficulty is that the mindset of the Christian who embraces Calvinism is that God's sovereignty entails that he explicitly wills every last, tiny, detail of everything that happens. The alternative is that God's sovereignty allows large degrees of true libertarian freedom to play out, while ensuring the big picture plan of salvation, and each individual's life plays out according to his will. So God knew that if I passed the Baptist Church at 11:03 on a cold wintery day in 1980 where my brother attended, I would stop and wait for him, become cold, and enter, whereupon I heard the sermon and the song that would begin my several month long conversion experience -- and he orchestrated that sequence of events to come to pass. But did he choose that I would wear jeans instead of dress pants? or a blue shirt instead of a yellow shirt? I sincerely doubt it. Furthermore, over that time he poured out his grace on me to soften my heart to be able to accept what he was revealing. But did he determine that I respond and submit my will to his? No, I don't think he did. And I don't think he logically could. If God can simply force me to believe, then he might as well have created the eternal kingdom from the get-go and simply included only the elect, forcing them to believe. There is some reason this world _necessarily_ exists as a precursor to the eternal kingdom (because if it is not necessary, then God truly is the author of evil under any system). I think Molinism is the only system which makes sense of how divine sovereignty and human free will are balanced, why we have this fallen, broken world at all, and why God did not simply create the eternal kingdom. Calvinists seem to forget that this world is not our home; not our final state, and are unable to plausibly explain why this current state is necessary.

[@peterpapoutsis496]

WLC crushed it. I wonder if Mr. White knows that Calvinism was never believed by the Apostles and early church. The Apostles and early church believed in Man's free will. See Dr. Ken Wilson's book THE FOUNDATION OF AUGUSTINIAN CALVINISM.

[@nelsonbanuchi7070]

@@Sgman1991 Middle knowledge does not determine how people will act; God only knows how so-and-so will act under certain conditions. If you are a Calvinist, it seem to me that the reason you can't see it is because you are looking at it from the presupposition of irresistible grace or God's movements within the will for men to act as God decrees; but if you remove both assumptions, and work from the premise that God's grace is not irresistible nor does He move within the mind and heart of individuals so they act according to decree and cannot do otherwise, it might seem more plausible. God works all things around the individual; He does not act directly upon or within the individual's will except from outside allowing the person to respond according to his own choosing.

[@oldmovieman7550]

God restrains us from being as evil as we could. He never forces us to be more evil than we are.

[@theoffensivegamer9943]

But He MADE us this evil. God doesnt force us to be more evil than He already made us. This is what calvinism teaches.

[@kevinmiller6443]

​@@theoffensivegamer9943 For the sake of discussion, let's project what we are onto God and say that God is responsible for our evil actions. 1. Why would He teach against evil? 2. Why would He seek to destroy evil in the end? 3. If God actively seeks to mitigate/destroy evil, is He evil?

[@Jockito]

@@kevinmiller6443 Evil doesn't actually get destroyed in the end by God, but merely punished for eternity in Hell. Evil still exists for eternity.

[@kevinmiller6443]

@@Jockito That's a fair point given Revelation 20: 10. I should have been more precise in how God deals with evil in the end. He doesn't actually destroy it in the conventional and finite sense, He punishes it for eternity in the "lake of fire."

[@truthbebold4009]

@@Jockito ... The wicked do not have immortality. Evil and Evil doers will be completely eradicated from the entire universe.

[@timg4718]

I love a good discussion around this topic. I think that William Lane Craig has the stronger argument. All of my Christian friends who accepted Christ and went into reformed theology all rejected God… WLC is right, White’s world-view purports God as the author of evil. The logical conclusion of White’s word-view is that God is cruel from the outset, people don’t have a chance as God has already decided your fate. I have always liked the ‘middle knowledge of God’ theory that WLC proposes. I love this quote by NT Wright, which puts the focus on Jesus. “Jesus doesn't give an explanation for the pain and sorrow of the world. He comes where the pain is most acute and takes it upon himself. Jesus doesn't explain why there is suffering, illness, and death in the world. He brings healing and hope. He doesn't allow the problem of evil to be the subject of a seminar. He allows evil to do its worst to him. He exhausts it, drains its power, and emerges with new life.”

[@dallasburns677]

So you agree with what you prefer and not what Scripture seems to teach. Got it

[@jeanjacket4238]

I have plenty of friends that are Calvinist, and they never fell away and even respect God more then most other Christians.

[@davidpetersen8673]

@@dallasburns677 you wouldn’t have sin, need a Bible, have a Christ, if calvinism was true. You’d not need a sermon on the mount. You’d not need faith. No one can read the Bible and at the end say “got it, I control nothing so no need to try and do anything, it’s already decided.”

[@libertarian85]

That's a terrible straw man of Calvin is saaying

[@davidpetersen8673]

@@libertarian85 I await you explaining what I typed above that isn’t demanded by a belief in an omnipotent and omniscient being that predestined all choice at creation. God wrote the script and hit play, the only decision exercised was God at creation.

[@livingtoaster1358]

I'm sorry but I'm probably the odd one in the comments section but I need to say WLC did not do a good job at all, I will say I'm not a Calvinist however I am a firm believer in determinism, and listening to Molism, for lack of a better word it is "copium". The reason I say this is that William Lane Craig acknowledges that prior events and history affect the decisions of an individual and say God determines all things up to an individuals decision but does not interfere with said decision, John White clearly demonstrated that He does but what WLC is describing is just determinism but not taking the step to say "God is ultimately responsible for the actions that we take" for example with the Joseph's brothers, while yes God didn't "make them" do evil, God intentionally made the conditions to do so, he gave Joseph his dreams, Joseph was talking about them to his family and everything, and it fueled the hatred in his brother's hearts, while technically yes God didn't put that hatred in them he intentionally and had the foreknowledge that they would have that hatred given the circumstances. It is the same case with the Garden of Eden when God placed the tree of knowledge and told Adam not to eat of it, yes God didn't "make" Adam sin, however he deliberately made the conditions set so that Adam would sin as Paul writes to the Romans "when the commandment came Sin came alive" and clarifies that the commandment doesn't produce sin, however when the commandment comes Sin comes alive and decieves via the commandment, the exact same thing happened with Adam, and with God judging nations, He literally says in Zechariah 8:10 "I placed neighbors against each other" and when God judges Israel he states numerous times that he is making the empires do this, and then he would judge them, WLC was literally reading his theology into the text when he says that God was using the Assyrians free will of conquering Israel, nowhere in the text or scripture remotely implies that. I do think John White could've done a better job on pushing back WLC, but the soundness and validity of WLC's arguments were almost non existent and it's ashame because he debates extremely well against Atheists, if you're at a point when your arguments are "let's disregard logic" I'm sorry but to me everything you argue about is just not convincing at all

[@countryboyred]

Peeling back the theology that’s ultimately what any debate with Calvinists boils down to. It’s a fundamental difference in philosophy. Determinism (and varying degrees of it) vs libertarian free will.

[@livingtoaster1358]

@@countryboyred exactly, Molinism just sounds like determinism but not biting the bullet that God is the one ultimately responsible for everything which, I had a conversation with a coworker who is a fellow Christian and he said something that I always thought but could not theologically put into words, he said along the lines of that God puts the husband/ father's ultimately responsible for the functioning of the household, do you really think God won't apply that standard to himself? When he created everything in the universe and not a single thing doesn't happen without his say so, do you think God isn't responsible for what goes on? That's what the cross is, God taking responsibility of the fall unto himself as he is the Father and the universe is his own creation. I honestly find it insulting towards God to NOT own up to the fact that he is responsible

[@countryboyred]

@@livingtoaster1358 yeah the distinction to be made here is that there are primary and secondary causes. God is the primary cause of everything, but that doesn’t necessarily dictate that He is the secondary cause of everything. An analogy I like to use is a king. A king is sovereign over his subjects and his kingdom. He has complete power and authority. Yet the king does not control every single outcome of every event that happens in his kingdom. He is still sovereign and authoritative, but not the primary cause of every event. Secondary events can and do occur.

[@countryboyred]

@@livingtoaster1358 the problem with strict determinism (and by extension, 5 point Calvinism) is that it makes God out to be the author (and cause) of evil. Because determinists believe only in primary causes. Evil exists therefore God must have caused it. This is not only illogical, it’s unbiblical.

[@livingtoaster1358]

@@countryboyred the thing is, if the king places a servant in a situation in which they know what they will do, of which they're going to make a bad decision, instead of getting rid of said situation, he intentionally places them in that situation so that they would make a bad decision. For example, God created the necessary conditions for Adam and Eve to sin against God, he places a specific tree of which they shouldn't eat, he makes them aware of the tree and where it is, and tells him not to eat that tree, thus stirring what Paul describes in Romans as Sin, for outside the commandments Sin lies dead, but when God gives the commandments it comes alive and tries to decieve us through the commandment, so while yes God didn't directly cause the fall, he intentionally made the conditions of which the fall would happen

[@mdona9]

Praise God that he decreed this episode to happen!

[@logosgaming1987]

Through the circumstances in which all three of these men freely chose to do so!

[@user-jk2po3cz7d]

@@logosgaming1987 But yet were no surprise to Him, for the Lord has predistened all things.

[@logosgaming1987]

@@user-jk2po3cz7d yep! Molinism!

[@user-jk2po3cz7d]

@@logosgaming1987 Nope... I dont think my explanation leaves any room for middle knowledge, nor is it intended.

[@juilianbautista4067]

@@logosgaming1987 it’s Calvinism. We hold that God ordained the end as well as the means to that end. So human decisions and actions are never discounted.

[@lukeedison1632]

I grew up attending both non-denominational and reformed church bodies, and I have found a great sense of value and truth offered from both sects. I think I am fairly level headed when assessing this, and I have to say that the Calvinist (JW) really showed a lot of the negative sides that are often associated with Calvinism. He quoted Calvinist doctrines more frequently and almost more authoritatively than he quoted the Bible. He carried a noticeable sense of argumentative antagonism and self-assured arrogance. Lastly, he did not answer questions - he almost exclusively attacked and asked questions. The most noteworthy point to me was when JW repeatedly refused to answer the Molinist (WLC) when we addressed the Calvinist issue of God causing evil. This was a really good discussion, but while WLC and the host were here for a discussion/debate, JW seemed to be here to argue. WLC had a few word choices pertaining to God's control which I disagreed with, but I think he won this encounter hand over fist.

[@thafurr9537]

Yea I think James was getting frustrated because bill wasn’t showing any scriptures In the Bible to back his claim. He was quoting Scrooge. Oh well merry Christmas.

[@sarasho6098]

@@thafurr9537 that's because both views can be argued from scripture. That approach would only lead to them throwing different passages at each other that seems to support their view. WLC could do that with is evident from the bible passages brought up. What he did instead was to show that his was the more reasonable system. Being consistent automatically doesn't mean you are correct.

[@thafurr9537]

@@sarasho6098 what white said from scriptures is what Calvinist believe without altering or adding? Us Christian don’t want to label God as the author of evil, and I get that. Romans 20 but who are you, mere man, to talk back to God? Will what is formed say to the one who formed it? Why did you make me like this? Or had the potter no right over the clay, to make from the same lump one piece of pottery for honor and another for dishonor? And what if God, desiring to display his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience objects of wrath ready for destruction? And what if, he did this to make known the riches of his glory on objects of mercy that (he) prepared (before hand) for glory on us. To say God is not completely sovereign and ultimately he can do as he please sound almost sinful? To me of course. To compare God to one of us and hold him account for evil is silly. People are born to be a slave to sin, and he the creator has every right to use his creation for whatever purpose he wants. Honorable or dishonorable. Molonism has to be added in the text to work, white stands firm on the text with not adding In nothing. With much love and grace awesome that we’re able to agree to disagree amen but ultimately faith in Christ is key. Amen brother

[@Cwcs4]

@@thafurr9537 very well said, amen

[@jeffluehm6224]

Definitely hard for Calvinists to deny the fact that their theology/doctrine teaches that God causes His creatures to commit evil acts and then condemns them for actions He supposedly causes. I definitely had to reject that theology because it makes God a moral monster. Brother James doesn’t even seem to even try.

[@rogerdukelogosscholar9371]

Only WLC showed up to discuss the problem of evil. Although I'm not quite convinced of the truth of Molinism, WLC defended it well and made clear points. JW spent almost all his time on the attack and barely touched on the supposed topic of the debate. The closest he came was to say God does not author evil, but rather restrains it. This was based on passages which are clearly meant to be exceptional cases of God's intervention and not the normative way God interacts with His creatures. Yet, JW never denied the absolute determinism of God and so the question of the author of evil remains.

[@Pankeekii]

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

[@elkellenhabla]

I think it’s because it’s more of an emotional argument. Molonists need to demonstrate that God could not be sovereign over evil and also holy. Also, Molonism doesn’t solve the “problem” of evil as evil still exists. Meaning a holy God allowed for the creation of a world where evil events would take place.

[@Solideogloria00]

Of course, Calvinism teaches an evil God and excuses sinners. It’s unbiblical, praise God I don’t follow that anymore.

[@TheNathanMac]

As is the continual tactic of James white when he approaches soteriology.

[@elkellenhabla]

@@xuniepyro7399 yeah and as I’ve said I don’t think Molonism does anything to solve this apparent “problem.” It says God created the scenario in which a person would sin as though this is some improvement. Molonism: God knew with absolutely certainty the scenario in which you would sin and put you in that scenario. God could have put you in a different scenario but He chose the one in which you’d fall.

[@Mike-qt7jp]

Think this through. This one verse refutes hyper Calvinism; Matthew 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen." If Calvinism were true, the verse would/must say, "Few are chosen."

[@leesisaiah]

Chosen by whom? 😅

[@redsilifek4557]

General call vs effectual call. Look it up and draw your own conclusions from that.

[@emris3055]

@@leesisaiahBy God

[@JD-xz1mx]

@@redsilifek4557 You're adding content not in the text. Your conclusion must itself be supported by evidence.

[@cosmictreason2242]

@@JD-xz1mxit logically can't be an effectual call or it would be "many are called and many are chosen"

[@jonageskuland]

When God says in the OT " They restisted my Spirit" , it goes against determinism, cause it states that humans can resist the will of God. When Paul said that "Satan hindered me", and Scripture said that Jesus could not do "many miracles there because of unbelif" , then it clearly implies that humans can resist the will of God, and that Satan can hinder the will of God to be done.

[@andrewscotteames4718]

Don’t try and throw scriptures at the reformed camp. They always have an answer for why the text doesn’t mean what it teaches but instead means what reformed theology teaches.

[@charlesfeltham8528]

@@andrewscotteames4718 Hey Andrew I can see that you have dealt with calvinist before. You are so right

[@Godisgoodhq]

So true

[@garybridgham31]

@@andrewscotteames4718 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me when as yet there were none of them. Psalm 139 : 16. The LORD has made all things for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of evil. Proverbs 16 : 4 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. Acts13 : 48 "No man can come to Me, except the Father Who sent Me draws him: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6 : 44 " You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you, that you should go and bring forth fruit..." John 15 : 16

[@sak415]

@@garybridgham31 you quote bible verses and thats cool, but how do you harmonize those verses with all the verses where people go against gods will?

[@samstockfisch]

Wow, a debate that I've been waiting for for so long and it comes on my birthday! I look forward to seeing the points made by both White and Craig and I wonder if this may lead to more discussions between these two or inspire others to participate in such debates!

[@TheistBrooks]

Happy Birthday

[@joelrodriguez1232]

Happy birthday 🎂

[@alexwarstler9000]

Either way, you didn't have a choice. 🤣🤣🤣😎😎😎

[@samstockfisch]

@@alexwarstler9000 But maybe I did 😂😉😎

[@alexwarstler9000]

@@samstockfisch Well played. I have been bested in combat. 🤺🤺🤺

[@superjam18]

Im glad William and James finally got to communicate

[@richyxiong3062]

William is my man! Such godly wisdom and understanding. Amen!

[@sonlover62]

These are both men I respect. That said, I think Bill makes the more convincing argument. James seems unwilling to "listen to learn" ... but instead, seems to be "listening to respond".

[@isaiahfriedeman]

Very disappointed that White never truly addressed Craig's accusation that Calvinism makes God the author of evil. His insistence that the Calvinist view is scriptural holds no weight without thoroughly treating what his own view says about the nature of God. Clearly, Craig was trying to take the conversation there (over and over again), but White seemed to consistently avoid it. I was really excited to hear this conversation, but I was disappointed when it failed to adequately address the simple issue of God as the author of evil.

[@jonathanchaney5896]

I agree that White doesn't seem to answer that. But he seems to trying to dig in on the grounding and was just told that objection held no weight with no real explanation. So White tried to say why it does. It seemed White was showing not only why Molinism is not a good answer to evil, but not a good answer for anything, but ended up not really dealing with the actual topic.

[@rofyle]

What do you mean by "truly address"? I have to ask this, because there are some folks who hear the answer but don't like it, so they then accuse the answerer of not "truly addressing" it. White did address it. He addressed it fully, as well. God freely determined to create all things in accordance with the counsel of His own will for the purpose of bringing all things under subjection to the Son to the glory of God (Ephesians 1, Colossians 1, Romans 9). All things means all things including all things good and evil just as all authorities, powers and dominion on earth AND IN HEAVEN includes Satan and the fallen angels. In other words, God purposes evil. It isn't something from outside His purview that enters into His hypothetical calculations and He must therefore try to deal with it as best He can. No, He instead purposes it. It would not exist unless He purposed it. But the reason why He purposed man to commit it is not why man purposes to commit it. This is the part folks don't like. They don't like the idea of a God who has purposed them to do something. They instead are convinced by the serpent's lie ("you shall be as God") which tells them they are free autonomous creatures incapable of being purposed to do anything apart from their own autonomous free will. Craig has no Biblical answer for this. He has a "philosophical plausibility" which is just the same as saying, "that friendly little snake in Eden told me this is true." In other words, it's not the truth God has revealed to us in the pages of Scripture. It's instead a lie Satan told in the garden which was played out in accordance with God's free, predetermined counsel. God has determined that Bill be deceived for the purpose of bringing all things in subjection to the Son. Bill should be very frightened by this, but of course he isn't, because deceived people aren't.

[@winterlogical]

​@@rofyleI would recommend applying some red letter theology to your ideas. Read the teachings of Jesus extremely carefully, and then revisit these texts. I don't see how Calvinism logically follows from the way Jesus speaks about coming to know God and how He speaks about the very nature of God. He says He does what His father is doing - communing with God, healing the sick, forgiving the sins of mankind. What does Jesus not do? Arbitrarily force people to do things, kill people, etc... How can one who is Love and Light in His very nature (1 John 4) _purpose_ evil, aka create it by intention and impose it on unwilling creatures? That is not perfectly loving. That is cruelty - and that isn't my morality speaking, I don't see how it isn't objective that a being who forces these things isn't evil. It's coercion. Don't you believe coercion is wrong? If I force a woman to have sex with me, it's rape and she is violated. So, you're saying every woman who has been raped has been forced into that not because a man sinned and freely chose to rape her, but because God made it so. Do you see how sin starts to not make sense? How is the man doing something morally wrong / 'missing the mark' if he had no choice in the first place? How can God hold the man morally culpable? The entire logistical system breaks down. I believe God can make greater purpose out of these events, but to believe it is His will is disturbing theology. On Romans 9: There are so many reasons I think the pre-deterministic interpretation is misguided. The biggest thing, I think, is this: why would Paul say, in Romans 9:22, that God has "endured with much patience" the vessels he was preparing for destruction? Need God endure the rebellious people referenced in this Scripture if He was the one _already making them_ rebellious? It makes much more sense that the people were already rebellious by their own choice. Why would a God who is described as patient many times need any sort of patience if he could arbitrarily determine what He wants at any time? Why not just skip the whole "people living a physical life on earth" and skip right to Heaven and Hell with respective humans? What is the point of existing _now?_ I don't disagree that suffering is never something God wills, because often out of suffering are beautiful lessons learned or new life grows. But why does Jesus say that there is a _thief_ who kills, steals, and destroys, but He comes to give life and give it abundantly? There's a discrepancy from who is the destroyer and who is the author of life. God created Satan, yes, and all things exist by Jesus Christ - but to posit Satan is constantly described as His adversary and actively working against the will of God. Some food for thought for you.

[@rofyle]

@@winterlogical First, if you're going to apply some red letter theology as you put it, then it would probably help if you start with red letters that actually exist rather than with some red letters you have invented off the top of your head. John 5:19-24 19 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son GIVES LIFE TO WHOM HE WILL. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. Jesus says in words as crimson as the blood that flowed from Calvary, "the Son gives life to whom He will." This is what He sees the Father doing. He is even going to press on this further in the very next chapter of John where He will say no one can come to the Son unless the Father who sent the Son draws him. He will press this even further in chapter 10 where He will say He came to lay His life down for the sheep, and then He will then turn to some unbelieving Jews and say to them, "You do not believe because you are not My sheep." You have this all backwards. You will say He gives life to those who will rather than to those He wills. You will say all who come will the Father draw. And you will even say those unbelieving Jews in John 10 were not sheep because they did not believe rather than the other way around as Jesus stated. So you see, if you're going to develop your theology from Jesus' own words, then you really must start with the words Jesus actually said rather than words He didn't say, because otherwise what you end up developing is a theology of mist and sand built on lies.

[@rofyle]

@@winterlogical Second, who are these unwilling creatures you speak of? I know of no such creature who has ever existed. A creature unwilling to murder, but who somehow still murders anyway? What sinner is this? There is no such creature save but the one who lives in your own straw man argument. Calvinists do not say God imposes His will upon unwilling creatures. Quite the opposite. Man does what it is in his nature to do. He wills only evil continuously. God looks down from heaven upon the children of men. There are none who do good, no not one. Their mouth is like the mouth of a poisonous asp. They lie, blaspheme and murder continuously. They sin because they will to sin. As for "arbitrarily", this is your word, not mine. My God does nothing arbitrarily. My God had predestined all that will come to pass for the purpose of glorifying His name through the Son. In other words, why does evil exist? Why do babies die? Why do animals suffer? Why do people destroy? I will tell you why. So that the Son might be glorified in both His mercy and justice. It's not God's mercy you have a problem with. It's His justice that troubles you. God does not just predestine some people to hell. He is right to do so. If there be anything in creation more worthy of glory than God, anything at all, than that thing would itself be God above God. God by necessity must be concerned with His glory, for there is nothing in all creation more glorious than He. This means ALL His attributes must be glorified, not only His love and mercy, but also His wisdom, His justice, His anger and His holiness. Satan is but a mere creature. He is not God's opposite. God has no opposite. There is none who can oppose Him or say to Him, "By what right have You done this?" God does no evil Himself, but He certainly does predestine it. Evil would not exist had He not willed it to exist. Who was it who gave to Satan a fallible heart that would fall to pride? If you have a problem with this, then you will have a tremendous problem with 1 Kings 22

Thank God for determining Justin to invite these two for the debate! LOL. I really enjoy Bill's posture, his calm and honesty. Beyond James White compromise with Calvinism, I believe - since he is deeply anti-catholic - that he can't admit that there is a non-reformed theological giant as Molina or any other. And, at least for me, this moves the balance in favor of Bill's intellectual honesty. In Bill I see free inquiry and in James White I see just one more person trying to justificate a point of view at any cost.

[@brentporter4754]

I feel the same. It needs to be said, reformers were human and their words are not Scripture. They got it wrong some of the time, and the Church was still the Church before they showed up on the picture. I try not to engage in tribalistic thinking and instead try to take the good and leave the bad. Catholic theology is whacky when it comes to Mary and justification, but has a lot of other things they got right.

[@juliegoos7049]

Also my heart goes out to those who have suffered great tragedy because of the sinful freewill of man. It is extremely difficult for them to begin a relationship with a loving God if they hear that God purposely ordained for tragedy to happen to them randomly by the hand of God. The truths of Scripture also line up with common sense.

[@Mathetesofscripture]

The idea of free will is idolatry. God makes people a certain way for his own reasons. Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things". Job 1:6-12: The devil only does what God permits Lamentations 3:37-38: Both good things and calamities come from the mouth of the Most High Zephaniah 1:12: God will punish those who say in their heart, "The LORD will not do good, nor will he do evil" Proverbs 16:4: "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble"

[@rkghawgs]

Another important thing to note is that James has a major issue with the "delimiting" of God - or God's sovereignty or power being limited by external factors. A simple response to him is - what if it's within God's will to limit HIS OWN sovereignty, or stated another way, what if God can be maximally sovereign in character, but choose to not act on or take advantage of His sovereignty all the time? The fact that God has even permitted sin to exist is great evidence for this argument. God's choice to limit his control in order to give us true free will is not a bad thing, in fact it shows how loving He is... because He wants a true relationship with us, and true relationships require free-will on both sides of the relationship.

[@MarkNOTW]

And is God not limited if He couldn’t create creatures with a free will?

[@rkghawgs]

@@MarkNOTW Great point!

[@andrewscotteames4718]

Mic drop. I was thinking the same thing for much of the debate.

[@rkghawgs]

@@andrewscotteames4718 Thank you! I mean it really is crazy. James White attacks Bill, Bill responds, James White clearly runs away from Bill's response by attacking again.

[@jacobalachnowicz796]

Brother Kyle! I just want to, as respectfully as I can, point out that your argument is filled with unfounded presuppositions! First of all, I believe it is the wrong view of God to say that he limits his freedom. Not only does the Scripture teach anywhere that God has a desire to limit his freedom, God IS the sovereign. To say that he handed over his sovereignty to us is unbiblical and man-centered. Second, you assume that love can only come from choice. But this simply isn't what the Scripture teaches. The Scripture shows us that God raises dead people to life, people who can't respond to him! That is love! And those people, who were chosen for no other reason the kind intention of God's will. And those grace-showered, regenerated people now willingly and freely run to the savior. This is the greatest news of all. My prayer brother Kyle is that we would all love the Scripture and submit to what it teaches, regardless of whether it fits into our logical categories!

[@bigbrownhouse6999]

I have long hoped to see these two have a discussion, and nobody is more suited to moderate it than you. Great as always!

[@SpotterVideo]

Read the recent book "The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism" by Ken Wilson, if you want to understand the origin of the doctrine. Augustine was trying to explain how infants could become the "elect" through water baptism. Since the child had not come to faith, it must be based on the will of another. It could have nothing to do with the will of the child.

[@bigbrownhouse6999]

@@SpotterVideo I am actually just halfway through that book. It’s great!

[@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 how in his view (Calvinism), God is in charge of every action we do including evil but yet God is not responsible for that evil committed. 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. Like Mr. White, most Calvinist generally say it is up to God to do what He will (which is of course true at face value), and then they quote the scripture of the potter and his clay; however, the issue is that God is not a God of self-contradiction. When the bible says God is good and is not evil, it means just what it says, that God can do no evil because it is opposite of his very nature (1 John 1:5 is just one example). The bible also speaks of God as a loving father, so what father would force their child to do evil and then punish them for said evil...this would be a very unloving view of God and one I fully reject. If I sin and do evil, it is of my own free-will and I only have myself to blame. Thank you God for loving and saving me in spite of my sin, and for not forcing any sinful act upon me for which I have no choice but to commit.

[@sheilasmith7779]

Ben. Spot on. Among many things OF Calvinism, it is inconsistent and illogical if one reads scripture carefully.

[@opendebate7414]

I think that at 40:19 he really completely dismissed what James had just said and goes on a rant over hypercalvinism which James and everyone who is calvinist don't even believe in. James just literally quoted the westminster and spoke about secondary causes...explaining how Joseph's brothers weren't puppets. God simply decreed that they would freely chose according to their nature willingly without as the westminster puts it ''making violence to the will''. Then William basically argues that calvinism makes Joseph's brothers puppets. I was astonished about this answer I mean, there was absolutely no answer to what James had actually said. I felt like William did not ever read any serious reformed calvinistic literature at all. I appreciate the guy but I was very disapointed.

[@opendebate7414]

You seem confused. Calvinists don't believe that God forces or infuse any malice in man. God decrees all things but as our confessions say, God uses secondary causes. White spoke about God actually restraining the evil of men because by nature they only do that which is evil willingly and freely. I believe that you should seriously read what we believe instead of making false accusations over what we believe brother. I say this in love.

[@bstringer003]

@@opendebate7414 Thanks for the response. The issue to me is that Calvinists say once God decrees a person will sin (via secondary causes or not) then at that point there is nothing the person can do not to sin. They have no say in the matter ultimately. This is the real difference in my opinion. I believe Calvinist would say it is God who decides who will sin and He decides who will make it to Heaven based on His decrees, and He will choose as He sees fit...nothing is really in our control (i.e. referring to 2 of the 5 Calvinist points Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement). In contrast, I believe the bible is clear that it is God's will that no one should perish but all have the same opportunity to everlasting life. Just like I believe it is my choice to accept or reject his free gift of salvation (via my own free-will), I also believe it is my choice to sin or not sin, and God is not the ultimate cause of those choices (via His decrees). Calvinism would say God causes his decrees to come to pass (whether that is for me to sin or for me to be saved) and it is out of my control completely. In contrast, Molinism would say it is 100% our choice to sin or not to sin (as it is my choice to accept Christ or not), and God doesn't cause it or force the outcome; however, God knowing the answer to all truth proposition would know the outcome in advance of what I would freely choose to do....and thus can accomplish His plans ultimately based on that level of middle knowledge. If I misrepresented the Calvinist view, I apologize and feel free to correct my misunderstandings.

[@sheilasmith7779]

@@opendebate7414 I suggest you listen to the arguments in favor of cavinism and (my argument) the one against by Craig. The podcast Unbelievable: debate of J. White vs. W Craig. Nothing in my writing is inconsistent with Cavinist teaching. Calvinists constantly argue that the Molina view and the Arminian view argue against the sovergnty of God. Not true, we argue that the sovernty of God as described by Calvinists is in error. We never argue that God is not sovereign just NOT the way Calvinists argue God's sovereign power.. Yes, agreed, God can do anything, but scripture does not support that He does or did what Calvinists claim. It's a good debate to watch, no matter your view.

[@scottiestamper3450]

Speaking from my own experience in trying to reconcile God's sovereignty with man's responsibility, I had come see that if God was both Omniscient and Omnipotent then he has both the physical power to act as a free moral agent within the universe he created, and would know how others would react. I didn't know words like middle-knowledge or counterfactuals, but I had conceptualized what those words represent. My basic thought was, that God must have taken all that was, all that could be "if" and then chose to create the universe as it is and all that pertains to it, including it's natural laws, and the free will of man. I thought of it sort of mathematically, like God knowing the laws of nature (like cause and effect) in reference to everything he created could predict with precision where what he created would be and what they would be doing at any time in and their circumstances and predict with flawless accuracy what they would do next. What ever God needed to do himself by exerting His physical omnipotence whether in accordance with natural law or supernaturally, in order to control the range of options that people had knowing what choice they would make among those options and the effect of their choices, in order to fulfill His purposes, He would do when necessary. Like a tree falling across the road you always take to work and removing that option from your range of choices in order for you to take a detour etc. James argues that noone before the time of Louis De Molina had ever heard or thought of middle knowledge is nonsense. Because I had never heard of Molina or middle knowledge but was discontent with both Calvinism and more so Arminianism (tho I believe Calvinism comes comes way closer to the mark than Arminianism) and in my attempts to sort out the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility had arrived at a Molinistic type solution that I was content with. And I personally arrived at it at a time when I had never heard of Molina or Molinism, so that I was in no better place than anyone who studied scripture before Molina came along. I know that I am not an anomaly in that regard. I believe that many throughout history saw things the same way, but of course wouldn't have called it Molinism or used words middle-knowledge or what have you. James White kind of surprised me with this line of argumentation. It's sort of naive imho. Based on mere assumption.

[@jessemendoza4647]

TBH I felt like WLC held back. He treats his brothers differently to non believers in a debate. Respect.

[@Redeemedbylove1987]

I’m not sure he even understands White’s position. He just repeats it makes God evil.

[@jessemendoza4647]

@@Redeemedbylove1987 the only defense White had for that point was that he doesn’t. Yet his determinism logically makes God the author of evil.

[@Redeemedbylove1987]

@@jessemendoza4647 If God does not stop man from committing evil, that doesn’t make God evil.

[@choicemeatrandy6572]

@@jessemendoza4647 Did God commit evil by sending Jesus to die on the cross? If you answer yes, then you dont understand Christianity. If you answer no, then welcome to Calvinism.

[@jessemendoza4647]

@@choicemeatrandy6572 Jesus says that there is no greater love than the one who lays down his life for his friends. No where in there is Calvinism even hinted. That’s one of the major issues with Calvinism, finding Calvinism in places where there is none.

[@GregChacon]

I have been waiting for this discussion for the longest. This will be historic! 🙌 🙏 Although, we need a longer discussion between these two on this topic.

[@cleansl88ds]

I really enjoyed this discussion... I hope someday they will have a more formal debate on the matter... much thanks to everyone involved in this video.

[@joseph_summers]

What a conversation! Really enjoyed this.

[@ENCwwe]

Wow this is huge! White has been criticizing Craig for years especially in regards to Molinism. I disagree with White much of the time but I have grown to appreciate his perspective because he is very intelligent and in some cases he’s spot on. This should be a good debate and Justin is the perfect moderator.

[@BentJ87]

Great respect for both James and William, really insightful discussion. If all were food in the world then how would we have seen, understand and or believe in Gods grace. I would like to lean more towards Calvinism being a more aligned argument to the scripture. I wish I could’ve studied the word with these two gents. Im just glad both gentlemen loves God.

[@truthtriumphs5289]

I have been waiting this for a very long time.....probably a decade or so.

[@jordanpeche9145]

It really does come down to this: what does God reveal about himself in scripture, what is his nature? The nature of God in molinism vs the nature of God in Calvinism.

[@jessedutch3086]

Wow, what a great conversation! Charitible and spicy back and forth. Justin even had time to zone out nearing the end.😁 Both James (Black/) White And Craig were truely authentic tonight 👏👏👏

[@KEP1983]

I love how James just presupposes that his interpretation of scripture is the original intent of the authors and then accuses everyone else of following a later man-made interpretation. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

[@andrewscotteames4718]

That’s ultimately what drove me from the reformed camp. Wild proof texting, eisegetical readings of passages, and massive philosophical assumptions were dumped on to the scriptures by my teachers all while they accused the other guys of doing that very thing and demanding that I not read their materials. It felt like the theological equivalent of gaslighting. Eventually, I started reading more than reformed theologians and I started to realize how much grander the scriptures could be than a simple determinist reading allowed.

[@oriiomcflurrii9330]

I noticed this too. He stated that molinism is not what the Pentateuchal author had in mind. Well certainly Calvinism wasn’t either. Nor did Jonah have in mind the Son of man’s crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and postmortem appearances when he recorded his experience in the whale’s belly. Jesus just gave light to what formerly wasn’t fully revealed. In the same way a soteriological viewpoint that is consistent with scripture, no matter how far removed to the writings, gives light today to what was formerly written.

[@bloodboughtbigphilr8266]

Bob Wilkin wiped the floor with him in the Free Grace v Lordship Salvation debate and left him floundering.

[@Xenosaurian]

Well exactly!

[@SSJCyan]

thats basically calvinism

[@cpjds1]

Justin is quite simply the best host for these debates.

[@jimfisher5828]

James White: Sola Scriptura William Lane Craig: Sola Philosophia

[@dailytheology1689]

Righto.

[@randomname2366]

I enjoyed the discussion and feel I learned some small details I had never thought of before. I do feel like James found it best to simply attack and never defend the consistent claim WLC was making about Calvinism making God the author of evil. He simply ignored the claim and instead attempted to try and say molinism is trying to limit God, which I feel he failed to do. Indeed James often used as hominem attacks against Molina being a Jesuit as justices alone for rejecting any truth that molinism might impart. Additionally, he made claims like “reformed theology is the grounds of what makes giants of theological thinkers” using a presupposition that reformed theology is correct to justify the brilliance of the reformed theology expressed by many thinkers.

[@mystery6411]

Nailed it.

[@lolersauresrex8837]

It’s so sad that I know James White’s argumentation to the degree that I know you’re being completely honest and nailing how the debate went without having watched it yet myself.

[@castanedamusic1578]

James made some good points, but I agree that his ultimate rhetorical failure in this debate was assuming that Craig’s intentions were to avoid honest Biblical exegesis. Not to mention, He never offered an answer to how God is not the author of evil, He just stated the fact. I am sure he can defend his view, I just don’t think he did so in this debate. Either way, what an edifying discussion.

[@bradandrews3936]

Agree. Honestly it may have been the limitations of the format. It seems like he had a specific objective to expose Molinism by proving it does not come from Scripture and is not consistent with Scripture. In doing so, he did not sufficiently refute WLC’s assertions about Calvinism. Just a thorough explanation of positive-negative predestination would have fully grounded his position.

[@SerenityNow22]

“What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-“ Romans 9:22-23 James believes in Sola Scriptura and for him to explain why God ordains all that happens (including evil) outside of scripture would be to go against sola scriptura & venture into philosophy like WLC does. I’m not a brilliant biblical scholar like these men are (obviously 🤣) but I’m more than satisfied with what scripture has clearly revealed: God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. Humans are responsible for their actions. There is no injustice on God’s part. If we could explain how this all works then God isn’t really God. We’re finite, he’s infinite. These debates are enjoyable but we’re kidding ourselves if we think we’ll figure this all out this side of glory.

[@darrenchristophrl]

let me say this as a fellow brother in Christ watching this debate. I've been a big fan of both Dr Craig and Dr White for as long as I can remember. they've been a huge help (God helping through them, of course) through my times of doubt and faithlessness, and have both ushered me to a realm of Christianity that I didn't even think existed, and it is through discussions like these do I feel the reality of Augustine's motto: *Fides quaerens intellectum* (meaning, faith seeking understanding), so thanks Justin! However, I do sense a huge dose of unnecessary hostility coming from White to Craig, and I don't mean to judge things externally, but seeing from Dr White's facial expressions and intonations, I can't help but assume so. On the contrary, I can see Dr Craig humbly and carefully answering the objections towards Molinism. I can't say that I'm convinced with either of their arguments *yet*, but I'm getting there. Thank you for this edifying discussion! Blessings to Dr Craig, Dr White, Justin and his team for hosting this debate.

[@thirstypilgrim97]

Tone/expressions/etc don’t have any bearing on the value of their arguments or dialectic. Also, focusing on “niceness” is folly and has been a hindrance to Christians in the culture wars.

[@wrknathome9254]

White comes across that way often, even to callers on his own show at times.

[@jeffluehm6224]

Craig was definitely the more professional of the two.

[@andrewscotteames4718]

@@thirstypilgrim97 Yet the Bible tells us that we will recognize true teachers by their fruit. I’m not saying that white is not a fruitful Christian, please don’t misunderstand me, but it is extremely important to discernment of fellow believers as to the expression of the fruit of the spirit from teachers.

[@mariahmacklin1304]

I’ve seen a similar demeanor/attitude in a lot of calvinists in my life and in media. I don’t often see gentleness or compassion. It doesn’t mean they have none, it just (often) doesn’t come across during conversation in what they say or how they say it. I think a lot of reformed believers dislike the idea of only being “nice” so they often go the complete opposite direction and come across as hostile. There’s a time and place for firmness but I think there might be some arrogance and a lack of understanding.

[@vitaliykoshyn7968]

I am long time consumer of both brother's content, but I have to say with my completely and totally unbiased opinion Dr. William Lane Crag made a more convincing argument for molinism.

[@isaacnegrete223]

“completely and totally unbiased” Your biases are a blind spot to your thinking. Everyone has biases and presuppositions.

[@liza1565]

You’re so unbiased that you may be refusing to let the Bible influence your opinion.

[@javariusjavarlamariuslamar3759]

@Armchair Christianity christians like you are the reason I’m warming up to Christianity. Keep doing what you do man God bless

[@nymbusDeveloper86]

@@javariusjavarlamariuslamar3759 Jesus loves you. Seek and you will find.

[@javariusjavarlamariuslamar3759]

@@nymbusDeveloper86 the doctrines of calvinism (which I strongly reject and abhor) sure make it hard but I’m trying

[@matthewjeffries4976]

Hi all at premier unbelievable. Always love these debates on this channel. God bless.

[@acts-me8xr]

I want to thank everyone involved for making this happen. I know it is something that a lot of people have looked forward to for a long time and it was really great to see even if only for a short period of time. I hope that the three of you would be willing to get together again to continue the discussion. Both James White and William Lane Craig are highly respected apologist for the faith therefore I believe a lot of issues such as this one could be discussed in a matter that brings to light the possible problems of one or the others theology. If I were to sum it up I would say this... William Lane Craig is so calm and gracious in his discussions that it's so very easy to be drawn to his arguments just for his mere demeanor. I think he's very respectful and at no point did I see a hint of snarkiness or cynical attitude. On the other hand Dr White, who I don't think was rude in any way just more irked by the claims that he was hearing from Dr Craig. Which I don't mind, I actually tend to be more that way but it was interesting to see on the camera how it played out and it very much has made me think about how I need to handle myself going forward. The reason I say this is because James White clearly won this debate. He was arguing on the grounds of scripture and what it teaches whereas Dr Craig was appealing to philosophy much more frequently. It really could be summed up in the opening statements where Dr White uses Ephesians chapter 1 to state his position whereas Dr Craig went to the Christmas Carol and use that as a picture to explain molinism. Both camps agree that God is not responsible for evil. The problem that molinism presents is that God is almost handicapped by the creature. God wants to save as many people as he possibly can but he can only save the people who will it and therefore God must create a universe in which the most amount of people will at any point be willed themselves to be saved. I believe scripture teaches clearly in plainly that God chooses who he will save and he did so before the foundation of the world but that he did that by his own will and good pleasure not the will or pleasure of the creation. Ultimately molinism has the same problem that it is claiming Calvinism has. It claims that God is the author of evil because he has decreed it but by God seeing a infinite number of universes and ultimately putting into reality this current universe he is knowingly placing the people and events into actuality where they themselves will commit the evil acts that he knows they will therefore it is determined as well. And for the person that says that God does not know then that presents a whole other host of problems that are unscriptural.

[@hoosierliberty]

I agree with your analysis. Well said.

[@danielfromca]

I think it's like saying if God knows evil will occur, it's better not to create a world at all or not to give the creatures free will. It seems to me that it's one thing to weigh in create vs. not create, and then find the greater good in creation plus free will despite side effect of evil that will result. Whereas another thing altogether to ordain evil. Moreover, God can compensate ultimately any sufferer of evil per unfortunate circumstances. It's like: it's better to have schools open even as you know some covid infections will result. But you don't ordain \ will the infections. And if you're a good doctor, you cure the infected.

[@EternalVisionToday]

Helpful. Thank you!!

[@pixmma9627]

I would have say that I disagree with you slightly. I do not think it was clear who won. I think there was some things on Dr. Whites part that were a little frustrating to watch. It seemed like a lot of the time, WLC and Dr. White were just shooting past each other and not on the same page. First, Dr. White was unwilling to separate the divine revelation of the bible with Calvinism whereas Dr. Craig was willing to separate Molinism from divine revelation. Dr. Craig recognizes that Molinism is not explicitly taught in the bible but also asserts that neither is Calvinism among many other things. Both are models that attempt to makes sense of scripture but Dr. White seems to think his preferred model of Calvinism is the same thing as scripture which is why he has such a strong reaction to Craig admitting that Molinism is not taught explicitly in the bible. I would agree with Dr. Craig that Calvinism, Arminianism and Molinism are all attempts to understand scripture but are not the same thing as scripture itself. John Calvin may have gotten his interpretation of the bible wrong because he is fallible like the rest of us. In any case, the result is that White and Craig were not on the same page and they went around each other in circles on this issue. Second, another place they went around in circles was the grounding of subjunctive conditionals of creaturely freedom. Dr. Craig basically says that middle knowledge is knowledge of a statement such as "Creature X would do behaviour Y if the circumstances were Z." White's response, popularly known as the grounding objection, says that there are no grounds for God to know the truth of these statements or in it's more aggressive form: "Where are these truths coming from that limit God from acting upon his good will?" The point Dr. Craig attempted to point out is that the very critique presupposes a MASSIVE theory of truth where all true statements must have other things that make them true which is what truth maker theory is. I've read in some of Craig's other work that he is perfectly willing to listen to a critique based on this idea but to his knowledge (and my own) no theologian or philosopher has risen to the challenge as it is a massive undertaking. White either did not see this or was unwilling to? It's hard to see because they go around in circles on this as well. (Paraphrase) White: Where is this limiting truth coming from? Craig: Why do you assume it has to come from somewhere? You presuppose truth maker theory when you do so. White: It bothers me that you are not answering the question of where this truth comes from. Craig: This truth doesn't have an origin and the burden of proof is on you to prove that it should because it is fairly reasonable that at least some truth is not grounded this way and I have given examples in the bible and in common life. They went around this circle a couple of times. Third: It really REALLY bothered me that White committed the genetic fallacy. Dr. Craig usually points out the genetic fallacy when he debates Atheists but maybe he didn't out of respect or compassion for the debate. The genetic fallacy basically assumes that if you point out the origin of a belief than the belief must be false. Atheists do this all the time. If you've ever heard a version of arguments such as: "The only reason you believe in God is because your brain evolved to find patterns in things for survival." "You believe in God because you're looking for a father figure in your life." then you've seen the genetic fallacy. Even if I grant them these things, God still might be real regardless. For example, my ability to believe that objects are permanent, that they do not disappear out of existence when I don't see them, is the result of a part of brain development as a child. The only reason I believe that objects are permanent is because there is a part of my brain that developed when I was a kid. Am I then to believe that objects are not permanent because I pointed out its origins? Even if Molina's theological ideas were a rebellious response to the reformation, they still might be true regardless. Pointing out Molinism's origin is irrelevant to whether or not molinism is true. It's a scummy debate tactic and sloppy thinking and we as Christians should really be better than that. Finally, In response to you specifically as I do not think it was covered in the debate, Molinism is not deterministic in the way that you say. Just because God knows what will happen does not means he determines it. In the same way that if someone pre-records the football game and tells me who wins. As I watch the football game, I already know the outcome but I do not determine it. Knowing the future and determining the future are not the same thing but it is obviously difficult to understand. Hopefully this gives people some food for thought. Cheers.

[@danielfromca]

@@pixmma9627 great comments. In my view, even with the truth maker thing, why not just say: what makes this limitation true is God's preference for freedom of the will. The limitation is not built into God, he could make everyone do as he wills, but God instead wants a world of free creatures & not robots, and therefore doesn't force His will on us. So that's the grounding for God "limiting" himself in this way.

[@gingrai00]

I have listened to this video probably three or four times and I am struck by many things but especially this... Craig offered no less than six chances for White to simply deny that Calvinism teaches unilateral divine determinism and at no time did White ever deny it. He could have on six occasions said no Bill, God doesn’t move the creatures will to sin… but he won’t just say it. Why won’t White say something clearly that gives some hope that he doesn’t actually believe that God moves the will of creatures to do evil?

[@mountainman78629]

God said He hardened pharaohs heart. He didn’t say it like that but mean He let it get hard. God is capable of saying what He means. For this cause have I raised you up that I might show My power in you. God is said to make the wicked for the day of His vengeance. Those scriptures aren’t vague. And in the mouth of two or more witnesses. How much more proof do you need?

[@MatthewHaislip]

​@@mountainman78629 Pharaoh hardened his own heart first. Just like Jesus speaking in parables. They could have seen the miracles, clung to Jesus, begged Him to explain the parables to them, followed Him, but they didn't. They chose their sin. "But since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life" "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent." It is entirely clear. God didn't COMMAND Adam NOT to eat the fruit and then WILL HIM TO EAT IT. In that case, it would have been good for Adam to disobey God's command. Absolute nonsense!

[@mountainman78629]

@@MatthewHaislip But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not listen to them, just as the Lord had spoken to Moses. Exodus 9:12 Matthew, I’m sure you mean we’ll but that statement is pretty cut and dried. It’s not vague in other words. Don’t misread something like that because it doesn’t fit into your interpretation today because you’re no different than Mormons or jehovah witnesses. Here’s something I was thinking about recently. The new birth, what is it? Would you agree the Bible mentions babes in Christ? We have to grow in regarding our understanding of scripture, correct? No one has a perfect understanding of it, especially a babe in Christ. We all start out on the milk of the word. As much as we would like to read thru the Bible once and understand it perfectly I think you have to admit it’s not going to happen like that. I’ve always compared the Bible to dumping a puzzle out on a table and having to put it together to have a clear picture. Most people start with the edge. Take the simple things of scripture first and set them aside. If there actually is anything simple with the word of God. I hope you’re not so set in your Armenian understanding that you misinterpret something as clear as God hardening pharaohs heart. Read about God sending Jeremiah to the potters house and see if you can understand that. Who makes who? Ephesians 1:5, God shows us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before him in love,he predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, by which he made us accepted in the beloved. Don’t try to take credit for yourself what is due to God and God alone.

[@fireandworms]

@@MatthewHaislip It does clearly say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Later verses say that the Lord hardened his heart. What's important is that the Lord is letting things work out naturally when Pharaoh does what He wants, and interferes when Pharaoh is going to do something that the Lord doesn't want. This demonstrates that Pharaoh has a will that's separate from God's will, thus free will.

[@mountainman78629]

@@fireandworms God doesn’t roll the dice to see how they land to determine His next move. God controls the dice. Take the lot for instance. It’s every decision is from the Lord. What if when they cast lots for Jonah it came up to someone else? What if they threw Jonah overboard there was no fish? God is either in control of everything or He’s in control of nothing and I think we know He’s in control of at least some things and that means He’s in control of everything

[@dustinhayes2623]

I've watched a number of Craig videos and enjoy his perspective. A friend of mine has watched a ton of White videos and he's showed me one or two. I literally just got into an argument w/ him over molinism and started looking for videos over it so I could make sure I agree with it/haven't misunderstood it. This video couldn't have been posted at a better time. I look forward to watching!

[@truthbebold4009]

What are your thoughts? Did you watch yet?

[@chinaboytag1]

I do really dislike the pride that Calvinists assume by claiming they are the only ones with the Biblical perspective here and that the apostles and everyone in the Bible would have agreed with them. These are very high-level theological debates and I think it's very uncharitable to castigate your opponents as having a heretical view to the Bible instead of explaining why that is. Just felt like White came to read the Bible and not debate anything and that's really sad considering that he should know that WLC has read the Bible. How hard is it to believe that someone can read the Bible and have a different understanding from you? It happens all the time in Bible studies that I have been to, but I rarely go around telling people that the Bible doesn't support what they are saying. You cannot infer a theology from Scripture and then claim it is explicit to the text. Weigh the evidence, read the Bible, but make an argument on the balance of scriptural weight that each has, because he's surely got to know that there are verses with very free will language as well, right?

[@alexfoltz4379]

Me before watching this video, thinking I know things: “Maybe I should go back to seminary and get a degree in Apologetics or Philosophy” Me after watching this video: “Maybe I should get a gaming PC instead…..”

[@valser1222]

Bro, I’m with you on that. 🤣

[@xpflowexclusive4313]

Watching vid today and was already planning on buying new controller but couldn't understand fully what side I believe holds much water

[@doubleoo519]

😂😂😂😂Sooo trueeee

[@Cafez27]

No don’t do that, this philosophical noodling about a topic that is obvious in scripture isn’t smart they rarely quote scripture the real authority or take their explanations from scripture. God gives us all we need to understand why He allows suffering and evil in his inspired word!!

[@doubleoo519]

@@Cafez27 amen

[@jemberalmojuela2487]

This is an interesting and solid discussion with different Theological and Philosophical issues of our time! Love both from Philippines!

[@mresab1997]

No, they’re actually all the same, only varying in degree. Both Calvin and Arminius made the fatal error of adopting the Augustinian premise of the will. Only now, instead of Arminius, a 16th century Jesuit who also adopted the premise of the will is the subject of discussion. These are all false dichotomies: same worm, different end.

[@daric_]

Debates aren't popularity contests, people. Judge what they say not how much you like one participant or the other.

[@10thousandfold]

I'd love to sit down and have a meal with Dr Craig. I appreciate how he explains these complex ideas so succinctly.

[@syracuse_]

As somebody who was saved as a young person, listening to this conversation just clarifies things to me that I understood about God but didn't discover until I was older. Somehow I had an understanding that White talks about when nobody taught me that and I has barely read the bible at that time.

[@JD-xz1mx]

The problem of course is Calvinism's premise doesn't rest on "God can bring understanding men can't attain on their own." Rather, Calvinism's premise is "Man CANNOT attain understanding on their own." Which runs into problems in most every Bible story that exists, as they almost all rely upon men coming to conclusions without being directly forced to by God.

[@amyunick5674]

The holy Spirit works on a person before being a Christian Calvinist only believe that certain people are saved not what the Bible says I cannot believe this is hard to understand that so many believe this viewpoint 😮 it's a stretch at best and limits God

[@ChristisLord2023]

@@amyunick5674 can you, without misrepresenting the reformed view, explain how it limits God?

[@lonnycapps9945]

It’s amazing when Calvinist want all things in Ephesians 1 to mean all they turn right around and say God does not mean he wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth in 1 Timothy 2! James they didn’t have Calvinism either!

[@Luiz__Silva]

Well, that would work the other way around too. All sides have to deal with differences in use of words and context. However, reformed theologians usually handle the biblical text more consistently in its context because they actually practice exegesis.

[@pattitilton8442]

@@Luiz__Silva I appreciate your humble use of the word "usually" but I've found too many Calvinistic interpretations that rely on eisegesis to agree that they practice exegesis. Lonny's mention of 1 Timothy 2 is just one example.

[@pattitilton8442]

You're right, Lonny. And 1 Timothy 2 is just one example where Calvinists come up with "creative" responses to passages that don't support the Calvinist narrative.

[@barryclevenger7456]

@@pattitilton8442 Since all men are not goinbg to be saved and to hold to Ephesians 1, then we must keep with context. All persons that God elects shall be saved.

[@pattitilton8442]

@@barryclevenger7456 If that’s true then I wonder why Paul, who was of the chosen nation of Israel and a chosen apostle, wrote to Timothy, “If we deny Him, He will also deny us” (2 Timothy 2:12). And why would he mourn over and pray for the salvation of his fellow Israelites in Romans 9:1ff, 10:1ff, them go on to write about people being “broken off” for unbelief (Rom. 11:19-22)? Could it be that well-meaning people have applied passages to themselves that the context does not allow?

[@Particularly_John_Gill]

Everyone in the comments it’s not really a debate. Just chilled out and enjoy the discussion.

[@Jockito]

Well the point is that they can't both be right. Either one of them is flat out wrong, or they are both wrong.

[@123abcdef3]

Great and respectful debate!

[@danielkurtz5070]

Bill won the debate when he pulled out the 2 massive books outlining the dogmatics of reformed theology. A similar thing happened in the NT Wright debate about justification.

[@edgardelgado8753]

he literally admitted molinism isn’t found anywhere in the Bible oppose to Calvinism which is all over the Bible, definitely didn’t win at all.

[@redonkulousd]

@@edgardelgado8753 You misunderstood him. He was saying that you can’t proof text Molinism with Bible passages. It is the same with Calvinism. Did you notice James White only quotes the scriptures that seem to back up his position yet ignored the plethora of scriptures that infer non-determinism? WLC was the more intellectually honest of the two on this point. He refuses to proof text Molinism. He rather shows that both Calvinism and Molinism are frameworks from which to interpret scripture. That in no way is meant to undermine interpreting scripture by scripture which really needs to be the gold standard. Yet, this is exactly why we have this debate. Because both sides think that’s what they are doing, taking a holistic view of the scriptures. I do wish WLC had quoted a few more scriptures to show how counterfactuals are present all through scripture and presented in ways that clearly show a free will choice of men, like perhaps Luke 13:34.

[@robertlewis6915]

@@redonkulousd Luke 13:34 is not talking about election, unless you believe that a city can choose to damn its inhabitants (in which case, I recommend any Christians in DC move out, because that city would definitely try).

[@NEXTMARKDESIGN]

Loved the conversation but I’m disappointed White never directly answered how he resolves God being the cause of evil. He kept gesturing at “secondary causes” but never really explained.

[@kintayo4589]

It's very simple bruh "No Calvinist can" There you have your answer

[@davidhewitt4568]

The Reformed Confessions explain what is meant by secondary causes, giving Scriptural proof texts for the doctrine. In a nutshell, God is the primary cause for literally everything (which the Scriptures affirm), yet creation/creatures also cause things secondarily (such as my wayward thumbs being the cause of this comment). Any evil done is always biblically blamed on the creature. Judges 14 is one of my favorite examples of this.

[@aaroncrim1929]

Dr.White didn’t go there because he’s done it quite often elsewhere And there’s literally thousands of pages elsewhere. The point was to press on issues that aren’t typically discussed with such clarity. One thing that I have grown to appreciate about Dr. White is his ability to identify and focus on the main point of any given issue during a debate

[@NEXTMARKDESIGN]

@@aaroncrim1929 I can appreciate that, and I have read the Calvinist perspective on secondary causes elsewhere, but I feel like that is where the true disagreement lies, so would’ve love to have seen the debate go there. I agree with Craig that White never really squarely confronts the objection that his view makes God the author of evil.

[@carolberubee4431]

@@davidhewitt4568 _"Any evil done is always biblically blamed on the creature."_ And Satan? The principalities and powers? I see Satan and his demons as mediating agents. People have sinful natures, but Satan uses that to carry out his will. Is it correct to say that God permits Satan to "rule over" any evil secondary causes thereby removing God from the direct cause of sin?

[@jovianleong4651]

This episode was predestined before the foundations of the world. Love it! Great episode.

[@KrisBellemare]

Exactly! Especially considering God could have created a world in which this debate did not happen, and instead chose to create the one in which it did! ;-)