William Lane Craig’s Thoughts on James White

[@ReasonandTheology]

Full video: kzbin.infoRwA9deMHhNo?feature=share

[@Stowerslemalu]

Maybe correctly represent Dr Whites objections next time. 🙏

[@TheJDough1]

The interviewer should have had an exact quote.

[@danielltorres5895]

James white is wrong anyways lmao

[@Gabeereps]

@@danielltorres5895in order to demonstrate that you have to accurately represent his claim. He’s not wrong.

[@mileshall9235]

​@@danielltorres5895 OKAY BUD 🤡

[@danielsampong6607]

Fair

[@RebelScumThis]

Love it when people misquote Dr White

[@joshuavincentparrella6853]

Regardless, he’s terrible.

[@RebelScumThis]

@@joshuavincentparrella6853 dang good argument my guy you got me on that one

[@lufesaro7741]

What was his actual statement then?

[@Henry._Jones]

@@joshuavincentparrella6853 Well, that's bullcrap. He has is shortcomings to be sure, but he ain't terrible. He's incredibly knowledgeable and makes some weighty points.

[@acemxe8472]

@@RebelScumThisWhat was his original comment?

[@user-iyyyy]

Craig, Heiser and Flowers are triplets who were separated at birth.

[@danielltorres5895]

Predestined to be so I guess 😹

[@jermoosekek1101]

@@danielltorres5895thats not an argument bud

[@joshportie]

They arent defending the same jesus.

[@emilianoking9400]

@@danielltorres5895I think what a lot of non Calvinists forget is the understanding that man has free will that is compatible with Gods sovereign decree. The nature of a first cause and second cause. Read up on it brother.

[@danielltorres5895]

@@emilianoking9400 divine unilateral determinism is not compatible with free will unless you employ calvinist lingo to re define what human free will means. But at that point it’s just sneaky sophistry so that Calvinist don’t go crazy going mental gymnastics. Also first cause second cause is nonsense all things are decreed so there is no distinction. Lol. Epistemically speaking, determinism is self refuting and even calvin himself wrote about this dilemma and is just another reason I can’t take calvinism seriously. You should read up on it. Lmao

[@JohnNewtoner]

The critique White brings to Molinism is where do these counter factuals come from? It's specutive at best and the problem this brings is that the Triune Christian God isn't fully sovereign over the counter factuals of his creation.

[@jalapeno.tabasco]

yeah, there is a 3rd force in creation in molinism that determines things apart from God and humans.... it's the card dealer

[@MuMung101]

The objection God being not fully sovereign on other views can be refuted because everyone believes God can do the Calvinistic sovereign way but chose not to. So it’s not a problem on non Calvinists only deterministic folks find it a problem.

[@Stowerslemalu]

Way to strawman the hell out Dr Whites position. I respect and like Dr Craig, but Whites objections are grounded in scripture and should be taken seriously.

[@jarroddavid8352]

Sounds like you haven’t seen their debate 🤣

[@Stowerslemalu]

@@jarroddavid8352 i did and have read Dr Craig's work on Molinism and well as listened to Dr Whites refutations. Im a admirer of both men, but its very much a strawman set up here.

[@jarroddavid8352]

Interesting. I'll give it another listen then. Could you tell me how so? Isn't Craig just responding here?@@Stowerslemalu

[@Snusenu]

@@jarroddavid8352Dr Craig in that very debate flat out admitted that Molinism is not rooted in ANY scripture within the Bible. Nor is it conceptualized… its purely a philosophical theory.

[@jarroddavid8352]

Now you're lying. Dr Craig gives multiple examples throughout the debate of Molinism in the Bible including the story of Joseph. "You meant it for evil against me, but God meant it for good." Human beings had the free will of evil intentions, but God with His foreknowledge created a world in which despite humans freely committing evil it will still carry out His will. Calvinism makes God the author of evil and cannot reconcile with human free will.@@Snusenu

[@samsimpson565]

Craig annihilated White on this issue on Justin Brierley’s ‘Unbelievable’ show. So all those defending White in these comments, go and watch that and then come back. White was totally out of his depth and was suitably dealt with by Craig on that occasion. His utter dismissiveness of White’s comment here is completely justified.

[@amichiganblackman3200]

We all seen it. White smoked him.

[@samsimpson565]

@@amichiganblackman3200 He really didn’t. Every review of the debate has Craig victorious.

[@samsimpson565]

@jackbridges1506 Three things: 1) Regardless of whether Calvinism better deals with the problem of evil, Craig won the debate conclusively. He seemed the more confident, resourceful, well-equipped and prepared. That was really my point and hence why Craig is so dismissive of White in this youtube short. 2) Whether one of the theories of divine providence is more biblically sound or not is just based on your own subjective reading. The biblical data doesn’t decide that matter. That was proven in the debate when White and Craig used the same biblical examples for Calvinism and Molinism. 3) To say Calvinism 100% deals with the problem of evil better is palpably absurd. Like Craig said in the debate, Calvinism seems to imply that God is the author of evil which, to me, seems theologically untenable.

[@AllforOne_OneforAll1689]

You mean White smoked WLC. White's theology was rooted firmly in the scriptures unlike Craig's...

[@danielallen8944]

never have I seen White "annihilated" in any debate...he always comes from scripture and not himself...hard to lose when you do that.

[@MooshmooshamBardolf]

I don’t think Nebuchadnezzar would agree with you, or Darius, or David, or Solomon, or Jesus

[@johnwhite2120]

it's funny that Craig's answer was pretty much a God looking into world randomizer and picks the one he wants ( not too far from a slot machine). sovereignty is missing from that view as well.

[@Geniusignotus]

Wrong, my dear. God chooses to actualise His own view of how the universe should be from an infinite number of theorectical universes that He himself has designed using His perfect mind. It's God first creating chaos then establishing practical order out of that chaos. In Matthew 11:21-24, we see that if the same acts Jesus performed in Chorazin, Bethsaida and Caepernaum were performed in Tyre, Sidon and Sodom then the latter three cities would've believed, repented and been spared; Jesus said so Himself. That means God has given everyone limited (or libertarian) free will to believe in Him whilst He passively influences us to actively carry out His will. God is indeed sovereign and has perfect free will. It's according to His absolute free will that humanity has libertarian free will (i.e. freely able to choose out of the options that God has already established for humanity and influencing our choices so that He will save whomever He wants to save)

[@otallono]

@@Geniusignotus You waste all your time writing what we already know and spend zero time reading the comments you're replying to. And like your own comment because you know no one else will.

[@coryc1904]

This is very cringe. He's attacking a Brother based on a false quote.

[@friendlyolbum]

Try getting an exact quote before you make a yt short about it.

[@vanjones1429]

If you're gonna ask someone to comment on am objection, you should probably get the objection right.

[@ReasonandTheology]

If you are going to criticize something you should probably be specific with what you find wrong about something.

[@clarityconversation]

@@ReasonandTheologywhoever quoted James white ended his quote with “or whatever” that obviously wasn’t the correct quote lol.

[@xiaoliu7071]

​@@ReasonandTheologyOP was specific. This moral grandstanding and infighting is ridiculous. You all need serious attitude checks

[@otallono]

@@ReasonandTheology You waste a lot of people's time and then play dumb

[@otallono]

@@xiaoliu7071 He works for the devil, so it's not really infighting.

[@Stowerslemalu]

Where do you get this view from a consistent exegesis derived from scripture though?

[@josephwolcott2544]

You can’t. Molinism is completely unbiblical.

[@Stowerslemalu]

@@josephwolcott2544 exactly

[@washedinhisblood.3906]

​@@josephwolcott2544so is reformed theology😂

[@lufesaro7741]

​@@washedinhisblood.3906exactly

[@bjornegan6421]

@@washedinhisblood.3906 what do you find to be unbiblical about reformed theology

[@roguecalvinist]

So God has to calculate, and doesn't know

[@washedinhisblood.3906]

God thinks, changes his mind, and plans yup. Go figure 😒

[@robertlewis6915]

Which oddly enough means Molinists have to be determinists.

[@roguecalvinist]

@@robertlewis6915 in a weird way yeah

[@TheFreedomDefender]

It turns God into Dr. Strange looking for the right one to create pretty much. It's foreign to scripture, and is a philosophical presupposition that you're bringing to the scripture, not drawing from scripture.

[@adamduarte895]

No because what if one part of God’s will is too make free creatures in the libertarian sense to be free agents. God is sovereign and can do what He wants including creating creatures with significant moral freedom. Who are you to talk back to God?

[@adamduarte895]

Also, divine unilateral determinism as spouted my many Reformed and other Calvinists like James white is also “foreign” to Scripture unless you have a theological presupposition to the text in order to save your system like saying regeneration happens prior to faith which is probably one of the worst ones

[@otallono]

@@adamduarte895 But if he's doing things we don't know about... we don't know about it to teach it. If you're just teaching 'what if's' you're a false prophet. A false prophet who is accusing people of "talking back to God." When in reality they're defending his words.

[@adamduarte895]

@@otallono this makes no sense brother

[@TheFreedomDefender]

​@@adamduarte895the problem with molinism apart from it not being taught anywhere in the Bible or by anyone in church history up till about 500 plus years ago is the fact that it actually paints you in a corner where you are going to have to accept pelagianism, and also reject original sin and depravity as scripture teaches it. Ironically these are two doctrines Craig has said he doesnt really believe in and has adopted a really bizarre view of Adam thats akin to concordism. Heres why I say this. In no matter how many possible worlds that God has to choose from where trillions of humans are making trillions of choices in trillions of possible scenarios oscillating between sin and righteousness, choosing Christ and refusing Christ, the one universal constant has to be Adam. In every last world why is Adam the only himan who consistently keeps making the same sinful choice that brings sin and death on humanity necessitating Christ as the second Adam having to come into time and provide salvation for humanity. You would think that a universe would exist where Adam actually chooses to eat from the fruit of the tree of life. Scripturally Adam was the only human to exist with a will that was in a place of moral nuetrality up until he sinned and came under the bondage of sin. Also in every possible world, there are going to be humans who could have been saved in some other universe but werent lucky enough to be in that one world that God chose to bring into existence where the most souls get saved and theres the least amount of evil. God has to say "yeah, I wanted to save you, but you just werent lucky enough to make the cut in that one world where things played out the best and be in that number when the saints go marching in." So at tge ebd of the day my salvation has been left up to luck.

[@EricSchneider82]

The problem with Molinism is that it's not derived from Scripture, it's a philosophy in search of scriptural support. I'd rather get my theology from Scripture.

[@EricSchneider82]

@KingXerxesYT I have all the reason in the world to trust Scripture. Why would you say otherwise?

[@EricSchneider82]

@KingXerxesYT I read what the apostles wrote by the inspiration of God and believe it. What's that got to do with the basis for my trust in Scripture?

[@EricSchneider82]

@KingXerxesYT haha, oh, I see where you're going with this. The Holy Spirit testifies to the truth of Scripture - that is the ultimate epistemological foundation for my trust. I can also look at history and see how believers through the ages have viewed Scripture and who they said wrote it and when. I can corroborate that through textual critical studies, etc. The bottom line is that if God gave Scripture for the purpose of informing His people, edifying, rebuking, etc., then it stands to reason that He would fulfill that purpose and make known to His people what is/is not Scripture. Jesus said His sheep hear His voice, and that Scripture is God speaking. You seem to think I need another authority outside of Scripture (possibly the RCC magisterium) to tell me everything dogmatically, in which case you should ask yourself the same types of questions about that authority, and see if that view can hold up to historical scrutiny and remain consistent down through the ages (including prior to Christ's incarnation).

[@AlrightDave]

​@KingXerxesYTyou have no clue on early church history

[@davisbelas3516]

@@EricSchneider82 well said brother!

[@feliperiossanchez7229]

I used to be a Molinist. The problem with it is you cannot really back it up with scripture 🤷‍♂️

[@jwatson181]

This is factually untrue. Serious question, do you read your Bible faithfully? I am afraid your comment suggests you don't. Do you lie. God is watching.

[@robertlewis6915]

@@jwatson181 Insults without argument have no weight save upon their giver's back.

[@jwatson181]

@@robertlewis6915 the Bible teaches molinism. The Bible affirms free will. The Bible affirms divine sovereignty. The Bible affirms middle knowledge.

[@robertlewis6915]

@@jwatson181 Please prove the final one.

[@mpprod6631]

So, how I would respond is by saying God can logically ordain/control something without being the author of that something. Look at the crucifixion of Christ which is the most “evil” act that ever occurred. this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (Acts 2:23, ESV) God caused the crucifixion of Christ such that it can be said God the Father crucified God the Son. Yet, man is still held accountable for that action and God is found guiltless. God bless.

[@shanemccausland958]

My problem with mollism. This is the best possible world that saves the most people? The bible could be instantly better if it spoke against slavery number 1 and number 2 why is God still playing hide and seek.

[@usandmexico]

Not a fan of Mr. White (he honestly sounds deranged on Twitter), but get the quote right.

[@TYRANNOSAURUS-1]

More like “ Moronism “!! 😂😂

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

It seems like this is too deep a subject for a mere short. It also seems like debating angels dancing on a pin. Do we really need to get this complicated?

[@MrJSettecase]

Slot machine…? You mean calculator? Computer? When did he say this?

[@TyronSmith-yo5tt]

ahh Billy Craig,the man who lowers the epistemological bar to placate his feelings instead of the proof of the truth that he so adamantly propounds.

[@joksal9108]

Can you imagine James White debating WLC? White might finally retire.

[@jakubkrticka1040]

Lol

[@robertlewis6915]

You aren't up with the times, man. It wasn't a full formal debate, but you can find them arguing about this on KZbin, on the Unbelievable show.

[@TheChristianNationalist8692]

@@robertlewis6915yeah still seems like yesterday though. It was something most people were hoping and expecting, or not, but once it happened it made perfect sense. God rest

[@PatrickKordoulis]

Peace be upon you x1million 😂😂😂😂

[@jonathandutra4831]

They already debated

[@ReasonandTheology]

Yes

[@spourchoable]

I think the slot machine is less about God choosing at random and more so that God is presented with limited possibilities that He must choose from rather than planning and creating from His will not needing to factor in His own logical limitations. For instance: rather than God saying I want to create a human that consists of this trait and this and this, etc. God instead says I will select this soul of all possible souls to fill this role. That is certainly my major problem with this theory. Theoretically the my soul could have been copy and pasted into the time and place and body of every person that ever lived and we would have the same full history of the world because my soul’s counterfactuals align correctly for the context of each and every situation. I do not see how God can be limited in His sovereignty of choices with His complete control of situations and compositions of souls. But this limitation is what answers the problem of evil and why all are not saved and why our choice can remain free despite His control.

[@Henry._Jones]

I agree with almost all of what you wrote there, but I would disagree with that last sentence. You said that under molinism, "our choice can remain free despite this control." But it would be more accurate to say that "our choice becomes free because of his lack of control." The aspect of molinism which you criticized in your first paragraph and a half doesn't leave God's control intact. It truncates it to the role of recieving templates or options from outside himself. He retains control of the choice among those options, of course, but He doesn't have control of the options to start with. I can appreciate the molinists desire to preserve God's righteousness, so there's that ... I don't want to dump on them or impugn that motive. But I don't see this as viable. It very directly takes an element of creation out of Gods hand's so that he isn't "on the hook" for it.

[@spourchoable]

@@Henry._Jones great correction, thanks!

[@thecatechumen]

“A popularizer” 😂

[@Henry._Jones]

I admire and appreciate Dr. Craig very much, but this kind of haughty dismissiveness is both beneath him and off the mark. Whatever James White's shortcomings, being superficially informed about his opponents' views is not one of them.

[@Fassnight]

Well, he was given a very sloppy version of Dr. White's quote, so it is fitting

[@Henry._Jones]

@@Fassnight I wasn't entirely sure what comment of White's was being referred to there. What I remember White saying regarding molinism is that it has God play the cards that are dealt to him by those "counterfactual of creatively freedom."

[@melindamercier6811]

You may need to watch a few more of White’s commentaries on Turek and Craig. He’s just as, if not more rudely, dismissive. Laughing about certain arguments they’ve made and speaking about them in a way that is quite condescending. I see no haughtiness here, only mild confusion over the way the argument was just presented to him which led him to dismiss it.

[@Henry._Jones]

​@@melindamercier6811On the contrary, I'm well acquainted with both White's material and style. I think you're maybe reading into my comment something I simply didn't claim - namely, that White isn't ever guilty of condescension. But I agree that he is (as an aside, my passing reference to his "shortcomings" was a veiled comment about just that - he has tone problem ... gets too adversarial, and too often). Craig's condescension was in that reference to White as supposedly a "popularizer who has no deep grasp of the theory." That was an intellectual-elitist swipe. It's no great excuse that he was just responding to how it was presented to him. Holding one's tongue is much preferred to going the patronizing route if you know you don't have the straight story. The characterization itself is patently silly, too. One doesn't have to agree with White's analysis or conclusion to know that he's well acquainted with the issue. If Craig hasn't exposed himself much to White's position, then that's fine ... it's not possible to keep up with everyone. But in that case, he should have held his tongue.

[@Americanheld]

James White is great at defending Christianity against Atheist types, but his theology is seriously flawed. WLC is a titan in this arena.

[@LawofChristMinistries]

Nothing this guy just said is taught in the Bible Just stick to the text Why try to go beyond what Bible says

[@timothyvenable3336]

Really? I know the “possible worlds” isn’t in the Bible, but everything else is. God gives grace to all and loves everyone, and we have the free will to choose him

[@jackmake5115]

Where can i follow this man

[@jasonmoncusgundinamo1811]

Do people actually listen to what will says. God picks the world he wants to be the actual world based on our sovereignty. What…. That is some twisted stuff. Makes no sense.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

What’s the problem ? Spell it out for us.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

No clarification, I see. So here’s the idea God knows how *you* would freely act IF you were suddenly given a million dollars. Even if you end up never getting that money. It’s a counterfactual Craig argues that God had this kind of knowledge logically prior to Deciding which world he’d actualize. So, logically prior to creation, God knew how you would freely choose IF you were placed in w1 circumstances, but also how you’d choose IF you WERE in w3 circumstances. He had this knowledge for everyone else too. What’s the problem?

[@otallono]

They're talking about a specific world view, not what he himself believes, am I missing something?

[@jakubkrticka1040]

​@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturnsits not based on Scriputre at all, its a man made view...not true

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@jakubkrticka1040 craig has explained in detail

[@barryallen119]

Craig is a heretic. He is Wesleyan theologian who upholds the view of Molinism and neo-Apollinarianism. Key tenets of Apollinariansm include: The denial of the human nature of Jesus beyond his physical body. The belief that a created human nature is by definition incapable of sinlessness. (many problems with this) Apollinarianism was condemned as heresy at the first council of Constantinople in the year 361.

[@SquishMe]

wow this is so cringe, Craig does not hold any of those views kid, at least do some research my sweet child, must be a Trumper spewing false info by the looks of things xD

[@paiger6058]

Thanks for this comment. I'm currently working through a semi-academic blog addressing this but its quite out of my league as I am not the most sophisticated. But something was off in my spirit when WLC said he was a Wesleyan, and I noticed, in a very bland explanation of it, that a tenant of Wes. Theology is that they don't believe the Bible has to be taken seriously as a historical document.... so... i took that has, you don't have to believe the bible all the way. that alone was a red flag.

[@otallono]

@@paiger6058 So you probably shouldn't judge someone based off of one sentence... I've watched a lot of this guy's debates and he does not seem like someone who doesn't take the bible seriously or doesn't totally rely on scripture for his belief and specific knowledge of God.

[@SterlingTate]

just when i think i grasp molonism. . .

[@marleyandme447]

Objection of a popularizer?? Another debate is in order. White will match WLC tit for tat.

[@ReasonandTheology]

I don't think White is on Craig's level.

[@marleyandme447]

@@ReasonandTheology Along with WLC, James White is the foremost debater in Christianity. I watched both of them spar on Unbelievable. A moderated, formal debate would be welcome.

[@ReasonandTheology]

@@marleyandme447 I have seen almost all of white’s debates. At least the ones that are available in video.

[@josephgarrett3075]

@@ReasonandTheology Correct! White would win against Craig in this debate handily.

[@noynoying]

White is an exegete. WLC is more of a philosopher.

[@JohnMackeyIII]

Molinism fails it requires God to weigh His bad ideas versus His good ideas to come to the best conclusion.. if you don’t understand why that is bad theology then me explaining it to you wouldn’t help.. You are that dense! 😂

[@h3mis]

In molinism, God isn't free to choose because he's constrained by human free will.

[@ReasonandTheology]

No. That is not the case.

[@chrismachin2166]

@@ReasonandTheology .that’s why molinism is a man -made theology ,to counter the 5 solas. Imputed righteousness is a gift from God.

[@HumanAction1]

​@@ReasonandTheologyIn Craig's view, if everyone exercised their "Libertarian Free Will" and rejected God, no one is saved. In his view, God can only be a *potential* savior. This is un-Biblical, creature centered heresy.

[@jarroddavid8352]

Tell me you don’t understand Molinism without telling me you don’t understand Molinism.

[@jarroddavid8352]

@@HumanAction1Wow you don’t understand Molinism

Smug and condescending while using an ad hominem argument…Classy

[@svennelsonmjmusic]

???

[@CHRISTS-Gang]

Wow that is some fairytale stuff. Scoooooobadoolan

[@JonathanTheZombie]

Must be easy debating a White strawman while the man himself is not there

[@j.peaceo1031]

Before you willy-nilly say something in the realm of Christian apologetics, you had better think of WLC first.

[@ReasonandTheology]

True

[@HumanAction1]

"Before you willy-nilly say something in the realm of Christian apologetics, you had better think of Cornelius Van Til and Dr. Greg Bahnsen first." Fixed it for you.

[@j.peaceo1031]

@@HumanAction1 Never heard of them.

[@HumanAction1]

​@@j.peaceo1031 // Never heard of them // Yeah. That's my point. If you knew who they were you wouldn't have said what you said to begin with.

[@j.peaceo1031]

@@HumanAction1 No, if they did a good enough job dismantling the "feared" new atheists and created more impact, people would hear about them. They haven't in the popular arena. And that is why they are still obscure.

[@issacissac1327]

You clearly do not understand the firmament/heaven.

[@aosidh]

WLC says universalism 😻

[@spiderwebbz3356]

WLC denies universalism? He affirms Unlimited Atonment. But not Unlimited Salvation

[@MrBugPop]

What a bunch of BS.

[@Arabian_Abomination]

Wlc is a heretic now

[@NikaSun54]

What he do

[@Arabian_Abomination]

@@NikaSun54 kzbin.info/www/bejne/oZe4lGWJeJ52qKcsi=x_aG6tDJq62Mh-sa

[@ordinarycitizenn]

Welcome to protestantism

[@Arabian_Abomination]

@@ordinarycitizenn Catholicism is apostate

[@MrBeen992]

This man is on opiates all the time

[@chrismachin2166]

Charles Spurgeon is on James White side- that’s good enough for me.

[@ReasonandTheology]

I’m certain spurgeon would be concerned you hold him to such a standard.

[@chrismachin2166]

@@ReasonandTheology I’ll ask him the next time I see him.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@ReasonandTheology I think it's ok to have spiritual fathers. I don't know much about Spurgeon, but if his theology is strong and he strengthened a lot of people, that is good.

[@Abeliever000]

William Lane Craig is one of the best apologists of all times. Period. 100% on his side with Molinism.

[@timothyvenable3336]

One of the best for certain. Truly a legend. I don’t think he’s right about molonism, but it’s plausible