Debate Teacher Reacts: William Lane Craig vs. James White

I'm gonna be honest here. I'm not sure what Craig just said here. Okay, uh, he broke me. All right. Good night. Everybody ladies and gentlemen. Good night. Uh, thanks for watching. Oh, it's on ladies and gentlemen.

Opening Banter and Show Introduction

It's on like donkey kong. My name is nate zalla and welcome to wise disciple where we're all about living effectively as christians. In today's culture as you can see I have a tie on let you know that i'm all business.

But my top button is also loose to let you know that i'm ready to party here. It is friends the event that you thought was never going to happen and here we are closing out 2021. With doctors william laine craig and james white on the issue of calvinism versus molinism.

I'm, so excited I think I just peed myself a little bit. So this discussion took place december 3rd on unbelievable with justin briarley two powerhouses wearing red and blue. That's interesting. I wonder if that was planned beforehand.

A couple of quick preliminary thoughts before we jump in. Okay, first I had to double check here. But it's pretty vague on what white and craig are supposed to be discussing the title of the video. Which is pretty much all we have to go on in terms of a topic is calvinism versus molinism on the problem of evil.

Okay, justin doesn't explain the format. Uh, like what is going to happen in the hour in 18 minutes here. He doesn't have to by the way. But if we don't have a clear grasp of what the topic is supposed to be.

We don't know who is engaging it better than the other. It seems like just looking at the title alone that what craig and white must do is explain how their respective views Fit better or maybe provide a better answer to the problem of evil if i'm right.

Then just thinking about a criteria to adjudicate here. Like we obviously need to hear the definitions of both views and how they work. And we need to hear a definition of the problem of evil. And how those views answer the problem of evil.

And we need to hear how the interlocutors view does not adequately answer the problem of evil or something along those lines. You know, what's interesting too here is I bet you could get away With doing a debate like this where you don't bring up the scripture I mean think about that because it's it's really about calvinism and molinism as coherent systems.

And which system better answers the problem of evil in the world you see that right? So even with this topic like the way it's worded.

Boy.

Let's just hope craig and white truly get to the heart of the issue. The second thing is because of the format of this kind of discussion I don't even know if there will be a cross-examination style discussion at all between craig and white since justin briarley is most likely gonna You know pipe into the discussion as well.

So you have more of a third voice than a proper moderator. So to speak and that really depends on justin briarley because I mean look i'm a fan of unbelievable. I actually interviewed justin years ago when his book came out, but i've seen him sometimes purely moderate.

And then other times step in as an opinion in the discussion. And i'm just saying it's hard to adjudicate something that's more of a three-person discussion Than anything that has proper opening statements rebuttals and crossfire.

The last thing i'll say is there's a reason why christians are not able to solve this disagreement between Calvinists and molinists in like five minutes or less, you know. It's because a strong enough case can be made on both sides of the issue over the validity of either view.

Notice, I didn't say both views were correct. Okay, or that both views were equally compelling. I'm just saying that these conversations largely trade on presuppositions that Form the basis of these kinds of disagreements and if these presuppositions are not sufficiently explored then this will really become an exercise in Rallying the base and then you know Both guys camps will just declare victory over the other guy at the end and nothing significant will have really happened.

I hope that's not the case. All right, but let's go ahead and find out right now.

Calvinism, Molinism, and the Problem of Evil

But but tell us firstly what it is, uh fundamentally. And and yes. And how you would address then the question as a calvinist of why god allows evil and suffering in the world.

From the reform perspective, uh You know the westminster confession of faith london bass confession of faith very clearly says that god foreordains decrees whatsoever comes to pass in time and then immediately discusses, uh, the the issue of the will of man and and everything that flows from that.

But First and foremost is the decree of god that god not only is the creator of all things. But because he is the creator of all things then he is the one who has determined the very fabric of time. And that's why events in time have meaning.

That's why something like the incarnation can have meaning. And evil has meaning because christ has to come to deal with this issue. And so it has meaning and that means the decree of god Is not something that results in mankind being mere puppets.

Instead that decree is what makes events in time meaningful. But the real question is where is the source of this decree? And the emphasis of the scriptures is. There's a particular couple particular terms are used but in ephesians chapter one We're told that this is according to the eudaicheia of his will the good kind intention.

That which is pleasing to him. And it's interesting that that's about salvation. But then later on and uh in that same chapter when paul talks about Working all things according to the counsel Of his will that's the decision Of his will that has worked all things out.

And so the reformed perspective on the existence of evil has to take into consideration the fact that god is glorifying Himself in all that he has created so he is demonstrating the full range of his attributes.

Bill has often talked about uh, the The meticulous providence of god and his sovereignty. So that's not a that's not a difference between us. It's the ground that gives rise to what that sovereignty actually does.

That is the issue between the calvinist and the molinist. And that has to do with god's knowledge when he has knowledge. And issues related to that i'll let bill define those things. But that's why I was saying at the beginning.

So you you see white here starting to lay a framework for the viewer to understand this discussion. The difference really comes down to the ground of god's special knowledge in molinism. It's called god's middle knowledge the knowledge of counterfactuals to human freedom that craig likes to point out a lot.

In other words what somebody would do given a certain set of circumstances, you know, for example. What would we all be doing right now if our government didn't suck so bad, you know. I mean think about that and this is where you say goodbye to good old nate on youtube.

Counterfactuals to human freedom. Okay, so good for white you you've heard me say this before and i'll say it again Whoever lays a better framework wins the debate more often than not. Especially with a debate like this for those who aren't familiar.

Perhaps you could sketch out the molinist perspective bill. Um, obviously, uh why you you know and explain just how how it differs from calvinism and ultimately why. You know, you think it is a more appropriate response, uh, or a way of understanding the problem of evil and suffering in the world.

All right. Well, I think justin since it is the advent season. It would be very appropriate for me To appeal to charles dickens wonderful story a christmas carol as an illustration of the molinist view.

You'll remember in this story the climax comes when scrooge Is confronted by the spirit of christmas yet to come who shows him terrifying visions of tiny tim's tragic death and scrooge's own unlamented death and scrooge Shaken by these visions says to the spirit Tell me one thing only.

Are these the shadows of things that will be or are they the shadows of things that may be?

So.

Some of you might be thinking what? Humbug, he's not appealing to the scripture. Well, here's the deal. The topic is worded in a very specific way and the way it's worded. It appears that you could get away with talking about the coherence of your system proper.

And how it best engages the theological issue of evil in a manner that is not contradictory or philosophically Problematic so in that sense to appeal to a story that everyone is familiar with. Um, well everyone in my generation.

I don't know about you youngsters out there. Uh, this is a good move. This is a good move on william lane. Craig's part. Scrooge had failed to exhaust the alternatives.

For between what could be and what will be. Is what would be? Under certain circumstances.

So I don't I don't want to keep interrupting too much here, but look at white's non-verbals. I just got done talking to trent horn and he brought this up in terms of developing your rhetorical presentation style.

You got to make sure your non-verbals are Under control that they are communicating confidence uh ease. Pleasantness, you know. Charitability all that right? That's not going on here at the moment with uh, with white, you know.

I wonder if white knows his camera is on and some of you are like, well who cares? Uh, you know, i'm just paying attention to what is being said nate. Okay. Okay, that's fine. I'm, just saying in a regular debate you also need to consider your non-verbals and developing connections with your audience on both an ethos and a pathos level.

Craig had a Smiling pleasant face when white spoke and white.

Does not. What the spirit was showing scrooge was. What would happen?

If.

Scrooge were not to repent and change. He was giving scrooge a sort of hypothetical knowledge of subjunctive conditional Propositions and the molinist view is that god has this sort of knowledge Logically prior to his divine creative decree.

Of a world.

And so while everything that happens is governed by god's decree God's decree takes into account How people would freely choose? under various Circumstances in what in which they might be placed so.

Not going to be too much of a stickler but in my opinion You really shouldn't drop those ten dollar words in a discussion and then not define them, you know. Subjunctive conditionals. Uh knowledge that is logically prior, you know, what are we talking about here?

But it seems to me that the real difference emerges with respect to moral evil. That is to say the sinful acts of human beings. What molinism holds is that since human beings have genuine moral freedom to make choices God knowing how they would choose in various circumstances Allows them to make sinful decisions.

That he does not directly will and so I see this as being a vastly more plausible view of moral evil Than the calvinist view Which says that god? moves the will of creatures to do evil.

And is therefore the cause of their evil acts. So to be fair to white craig has not characterized Calvinism correctly, especially because he hasn't explained himself here. Under the calvinist view God is not the author of sin.

Human beings are the author which is funny to me because Both the calvinist and the molinist have similar problems in my opinion. Both cannot get out of explaining god as the final cause of a person's actions.

That is under the molinist view god shapes the circumstances through which a human being freely chooses to commit evil. All right. He doesn't compel people. He chooses the world in which the circumstances are just right for them to freely choose to commit a certain action.

And god knows that this person will commit that evil action. And then chooses the world in which they will perform that evil action. In the calvinist view God shapes the nature of a person to freely choose what they most want to choose.

This is kind of a quick paraphrase of jonathan edwards, but the bottom line is in both views God shapes something He he shapes preconditions and people freely choose it just changes in the details about how that all plays out.

It seems to me that the molinist can be asked the same question. If god chooses a world knowing that person a will do something evil and let's face it if there's no other action this person Can choose they were always going to choose this particular action.

Doesn't god have some kind of moral culpability for that evil action if if not as a first cause or an efficient cause. Maybe as a final cause Of that act. I mean, that's how god is morally culpable, right?

Well, if the answer is no for the molinist then for the same principal reasons. The answer is no for the calvinist because the typical calvinist does not say that god forces people to commit sin. But neither does the molinist.

So what are we arguing about here? Why why do you think james your perspective is a better understanding of evil and suffering. Because. At one level, you know. If you can have true human freedom, a lot of people will say that that seems to be a better thing than then effectively god.

Micromanaging if you like every but what or every action thought and will of the of the human person.

Well, there's a micromanaging on both sides. Um and obviously in looking at possible worlds feasible worlds Of god ends up micromanaging all the circumstances that people are placed in and that's why a lot of people Reject molinism is it seems like a strange autonomy.

When you say that everyone's doing everything freely except they've been put in a position Where that's what they would do and god knows they would do that and many people would say look Mankind is not nearly that simple.

We don't exist as just this this thing floating in in uh in in ether that you know What it's going to do. We are made up of so many complex moving parts. And we sometimes surprise ourselves about what we do.

I've surprised myself more than once by what I said or what I did in a situation. And so there's a lot of folks who would say How does god have this type of knowledge of what someone would do before he's decreed to make that person?

But the the primary primary issue and you said where where do I go when I hear this? First of all, we're asking the question which gives the better answer and coming as christians. The answer to that is that which is in concert with and derived from What we have that the world doesn't have and that is a divine revelation of scripture.

That's interesting.

So again lay in the framework for the audience white says that the way to answer the question of which view is better In answering the problem of evil is the one that is taught from the scripture. I'm a little torn here.

Uh, because as a christian, I agree with white that whatever we do or believe or think whatever we do We need to be supported by the scriptures. We can never as christians lean too far over the skis of scripture.

And undoubtedly white is saying this right now because he feels like he's on stronger footing Within the text of scripture than craig is on the other hand from a debate standpoint. The way to answer this question has less to do with looking at the bible and a lot more to do With evaluating their respective systems for coherence for internal consistency for lack of defeaters.

And also like which system provides a better response to the problem of evil and by better I mean Contains less liabilities and seems more rationally viable than the other ideally you would hit on both aspects of this discussion.

But in what an hour left or something, whatever it is They're not going to be able to touch on all of these things in a meaningful sense, especially in this kind of informal format, so then it becomes a question of Which aspect do I focus on and which do I set aside for sake of time?

And this is this was the clarifying remark that bill made. Right toward the end of discussion. Here's the quote. What the mulliness does say that the calvinist does find objectionable. Is that god is not in control of which subjunctive conditionals are true.

He doesn't determine the truth value of these subjunctive conditionals. That's outside his control. So let me ask. Let me ask bill directly. Would you agree that these truth values of these subjunctive conditionals.

That is the essence of what middle knowledge is. Would would you agree with that?

No, I I don't think I would but I would say that's certainly an essential aspect of it. Um, the idea is that these counterfactual conditionals are true logically prior to the divine decree And are therefore independent of god's will.

God does not determine What free creatures would do in any situation in which they find themselves? He Takes hands off so to speak and says, okay You make the decision. And I find the calvinistic view less plausible james because It says that in any situation it is god who actually moves the will of the creature to do evil.

Um.

And therefore makes god the author of evil. So two things about that first That's not what calvinists believe and i'm sure White will clarify in a moment. I mean, hopefully he does. And second Craig is probably going to keep saying this over and over again because let's face it.

I mean rhetorically speaking the phrase God moves people to commit evil or or whatever. He forces people to commit evil. You know god is the author of sin. It's devastating as a debate talking point, okay.

Well, uh, you did say though that these subjunctive conditionals are Definitional to middle knowledge. They are necessary to it. Yes. And yet they are outside of god's control. Yes, so but they are also.

They also do not arise from Creatures because they have not been decreed to be created yet.

Right.

So.

Where do these truth values come from if they do not come from god and do not come from god's creatures?

I don't I don't know if I would have asked this question in this way if I were white. But the issue that white is identifying is how god knows. What will happen in the future if god is not the one who is in control of the future?

See under the calvinist view. God knows the future because he controls the future. Okay, he ordains the future. But if god relinquishes that control How does he know what will happen on the other hand?

Craig just said that god's foreknowledge can't come from human beings either. Okay, I imagine because it's due to libertarian freedom, you know. There there is an indeterminism at play that cannot be known prior to human decision making.

That's why libertarian freedom is also called indeterminism. So how does god know what will happen in the future? How does he know the counterfactuals to human freedom?

Let's see. What craig says this is an objection to Middle knowledge that's known as the grounding objection. It claims there needs to be some sort of ground of the truth of these counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.

And here I frankly agree with alvin plantinga that it's much clearer to me that at least some counterfactuals of creaturely freedom are true. Then that they must be grounded in this way. This objection seems to presuppose a view of truth called truth maker theory that in addition to Propositions that are true.

There are things truth makers that make them true. And I think that this doctrine is very implausible and that there are lots of counter examples to truth maker Theory and a truth maker maximalism which says that every proposition as a truth maker.

Take just one example of the proposition that bail does not exist. There's nothing that makes that true. Bail just doesn't exist. So if there is a truth maker of that, it's just the fact that there is no bail.

Similarly If one wants to identify truth makers for these counterfactuals of freedom, it would just be the counterfacts That are stated by them, uh, if it were true that if I were rich I would buy a mercedes then.

The truth maker for that is just the state of affairs that if I were rich I would buy a mercedes and I I don't think anything more needs to be said about it. I'm gonna be honest here.

I'm, not sure what craig just said here. Okay. Uh, he broke me. All right. Good night. Everybody ladies and gentlemen. Good night. Uh, thanks for watching. I'm, not at all familiar with truth maker theory and so now for me It's a question of how do I adjudicate when I don't know what was said?

I will grant that craig is right about white's assumption of truth maker theory and that it totally applies in the way that Craig said it does. White should probably lay another framework for the audience.

All right, it's all about the framework and it should sound something like this. I asked dr Craig how god can know counterfactuals to human freedom and the only thing he said was my question is based on a false assumption.

Which means craig's answer is god just knows and unfortunately god just knows is an assertion. That's all it is unless white has some substantive response to validate truth maker theory or his whatever He's doing under the broader category of truth maker theory.

That's probably the best response that he can give in this moment except that.

Feasible Worlds, Scripture, and the Grounding Objection

You're you're saying that it is these this is the claim that limits delimits to use your term the very decree of god. And determines what are feasible worlds for him and what are not. And so when I look at uh, the examples that are given and I look at any human being I know that human being.

That.

The decisions that I make I make because god has given me certain gifts and withheld others. It has never been a part of my decision making to to be a center in the nba. Because god did not gift me with the things that are requisite for being a center in the nba.

God didn't gift me in that area either.

They are they they are a part of his the expression of his freedom in his creation as christians. When we talk about plausibility the the real question for us should be Would the apostles? Of the lord jesus christ would the prophets when they were speaking in isaiah concerning the nature of god.

We have something more than just simply philosophical plausibility arguments. We have the light of scripture. Yes, and so if there is going to be the assertion as middle knowledge makes the assertion That there are these true Subjunctive conditionals that are the basis upon which god's decree Is acted out.

I think it is quite it is quite necessary for us as christian theologians to say from whence comes That which limits what god can do and how he can do it.

So it seems to me that white was not ready for craig's truth maker answer and you know, that's the nature of debates. You're in the hot seat. You have to say something right? It's not easy. Ladies and gentlemen, and you know, what do you do? When your interlocutor surprises you right?

It looks like white is trying to double back to his original framework now, which is to get craig to support molinism from the scriptures. Um, so maybe they'll talk about various passages soon. Let me address just a couple of other points james made.

First of all His point that people don't exist in a sort of vacuum but have a whole history of their character and background and characteristics um that Shape what they freely decide and of course, I agree with that.

And the point is that these counterfactuals of creaturely freedom factor that in Uh, the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom that god considers are usually thought to include the whole history of the world up to the time of the decision and then.

God.

Uh. Asked what would the creature do freely in that situation? So of course it reflects the creature's background abilities proclivities and so forth, but the the key point that defines us is.

That.

God doesn't determine How the creature would act in those situations. He lets him decide. And this is so important with respect to evil decisions that god doesn't move creatures to do evil. And then punishing them, punishes them for what he makes them.

Do.

Now, of course our view has to be biblical. In my work on this I always start with the bible and what I would argue is That molinism while not taught in the scripture is consistent with The scripture and I think that molinism makes the best sense of the scriptural data concerning divine sovereignty Which says that everything falls under god's decree.

And.

Its affirmation of human freedom And responsibility and it's only by denying the latter that the calvinist Is able to treat The problem of moral evil by saying god is the one who determines how anyone would act in any situation.

God might place him in so depending on who you are. This is either going to make you nod your head or get angry. Okay, but craig is absolutely correct. The reason that christians are continuing to have this discussion today is because there is no one clear passage of scripture that Systematically teaches either calvinism or molinism.

What we have are a lot of passages that appear to support both camps, you know. And i've said this before but there are two sets of passages in the scripture, you know. Those that teach that god is in control and those that teach that human beings are free.

But one has to supersede the other and the question is which is it?

Joseph, Pharaoh, and Isaiah 10 as Calvinist Proof Texts

Right, that's the six million dollar question in the assertion that was made earlier when I quoted from uh, for example, the london bapst confession of faith I pointed out god has decreed in himself from all eternity by the most wise and holy council of his own will.

Freely and unchangeably all things whatsoever comes to pass yet. So as thereby is god neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein nor is violence offered to the will of the creature.

Nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away. But rather established in which appears his wisdom and disposing all things in power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree. So obviously.

Uh reformed theologians have strongly emphasized all the issues in regards to secondary causation and how god works in time. And of course I have argued for quite some time that the incarnation of christ demonstrates that we're not talking about puppet sunstrings.

We're talking about the reality of god expressing his pleasure in his creation. And in such a way creating mankind. So that what happens in the drama of redemption. Reveals all of god's attributes. So that the real issue is when god decrees.

Is what flows from his decree? Freely coming from his will. Or is it delimited by something? We don't know where it comes from. It doesn't come from god. It doesn't come from his creation. And that is these this counterfactual knowledge that we are not we're being told.

Well. That's just a truth maker theory of knowledge I would say from a biblical perspective if we're going to say that the great yahweh is limited In what he can do what is feasible for him to do? Then we need to know from whence comes this strange delimitating.

Uh authority, I don't think that has anything to do with philosophy. It has to do with a claim is being made. So we need to know where that's coming from.

I'm, not sure if the shakespearean language is helping matters or if it's distracting me. Look, this is all a really verbose way of just asking craig. Where in the scripture does it support your view on molinism and middle knowledge, right?

And now we'll start getting to some passages of scripture on the face of it. What bill has said is.

In his view calvinism does make god effectively responsible. Why isn't god responsible? Why isn't god as it were? Culpable and humans are even when god has ultimately set everything in such a way that It was always going to be this way, you know.

So it's a great question now watch how white responds because this is where it gets really tricky.

Like from the calvinist point of view, there's two things to recognize we have. We have god's eternal decree Which is not accessible to us. We are time-bound creatures. Then we have his prescriptive decree Which is what he's revealed to us as to what we are to do what our duties are before him, etc Etc.

We only have access to that. And that is revealed to us in his word in scripture and in the in the nature of the world around us. And so in scripture, we are given numerous examples Where god explicitly says genesis 50 20.

It's been discussed on your program many many times.

So in other words, the answer is we don't know because god has not revealed to us how all that works. In my opinion. This is similar to what craig just did a moment ago. Which is to say we don't know how god knows the future counterfactuals to human freedom.

He just does know. So for the same reasons that people are not convinced of molinism when craig says what he says. People aren't convinced of calvinism when white says what he says. It just is what it is now that we see these kinds of liabilities.

If we if I can use that word on both sides. White's not wrong to point out that whatever we choose to adopt as a system The scripture should teach it somewhere or it should teach things that are commensurate with that system.

But spoiler alert whatever white brings up in terms of scripture to support calvinism Craig is going to say that that it supports molinism. Even if white brings up romans 9. We'll see if he does. I'm sure craig will have something to say about that, too.

Joseph.

Knowing that his brothers have committed evil against him. Knowing that what they did was wrong. Knowing even that god had actually restrained their evil. I I don't know why god didn't just put him in a situation where they would do freely.

But god actually restrains men's evil. God actually hardens men's hearts in other situations. Why would he need to do any of this if he has just put them in situations where they act freely? But in the situation of what the brothers did to joseph God specifically says through scripture.

You meant this for evil. He does not excuse their sin. He does not say. Oh, you're just puppets on a string. So it doesn't really matter. He knew what filled their hearts. He knew that god had restrained them from killing him and yet in the very same sentence he says God intended it for good and to save many alive to this day.

He uses the exact same hebrew term in both places. It can't be avoided and so in one horrific act I mean think of the evil of the brothers in deceiving their father in his grieving and wailing and Sending their brother off into slavery.

This is horrible stuff and yet god intended it for good. And so whatever you do if you take scripture as the highest norm as jesus taught us to. Then you have to norm everything else by that and we are given examples there in isaiah 10 in acts chapter 4 of where god's sovereign decree limits man's evil.

And accomplishes god's purpose through that evil and that god then judges men. Not for their knowledge of a divine decree but for acting upon the desires of their hearts. That's the basis of what the judgment is made upon.

So we've this has been discussed and and if you want to get real philosophical about it by jonathan edwards and others. For quite some time. Well, but I just point out that. Wait a sec. Justin wants an explanation not a.

Reference to jonathan edwards. Like why not explain? Compatibilism. To those who maybe are not aware of it edwards is known for positing that humans are only free to do what they most Want to do in any given circumstance?

And so humans don't have libertarian freedom. It doesn't make sense for people to say that they do. They're constrained in the compatibilist sense. I mean just take a moment to go over that, you know.

See, I don't think this is a great answer from white but I mean, hopefully he gets to it a little bit later.

Let's take the the you know that that example from scripture joseph and his brothers. What you intended for evil god intended for good. I mean Is is that a kind of a good example of calvinism or could it just as easily applied to?

Example of molinism. I love the joseph story because it so perfectly illustrates Human freedom within the providence of god. You Meant it for evil. But god meant it for good and has brought it to pass.

God didn't move the brothers to hate Joseph to kill him to throw him into a pit to lie to their father that would make god the author of evil. But god knew That if they were in this situation, they would behave in these evil ways, but that ultimately this would Redound to the salvation of israel and its rescue from famine and and all the rest.

So This is a story that wonderfully illustrates. I think how molinism resolves the antinomy.

Of.

Human freedom and evil. And god's sovereign providence. Molina was under the conviction That calvin and luther had annihilated human freedom and he wanted to show that you can affirm full divine sovereignty, but without Turning human beings into automata and making god the author.

Of evil if you're actually going to take something from the jesuits and the jesuits by the way. They were charged with undoing the reformation. That's why melina did what melina was doing. But to rescue rescue the sacramental system of rome.

But if you're going to take something that was developed 1500 years later read it back into something that was about 1400 years before christ. So almost 3000 years later as if that's what was trying to be communicated by joseph that joseph had this idea.

No, he understood. He understood. Joseph understood. Why if that's true if this is a picture of molinism, why did god have to restrain the brothers from killing joseph? Didn't he know that that's what they would want to do.