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, 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 gonna 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, but but tell us firstly what it is

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 reformed perspective, uh

You know the western mr Confession of faith london bass confession of faith very clearly says that 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 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 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? 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 of 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? 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 uh 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 um 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

Um, 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 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 all 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 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 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 mulanist 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 counterexamples 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 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?

What 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 divides 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, um

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? 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, uh

I pointed out god hath decreed in himself from all eternity by the most wise and holy counsel 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 reform 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 molanism 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 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

We're 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 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. He literally violated boy that whole beginning commentary was

Just unnecessary You know, well, you know about those jesuits, right? Like it doesn't matter

Where a view came from or what the motive of the view is it matters if the view is correct or not

Why don't you just stick to his strategy of finding support from the scripture because it seems like Craig wants to play ball on that area of the field so to speak so white should go there and just stay there

How does anything where god hardens hearts so that nations are destroyed hardens pharaoh's heart?

He he restrains evil with with abimelech. He restrains evil with joseph's brothers. This seems to be god acting against autonomous actions of men

If middle knowledge gave him the basis for just putting him in the proper situations. Why would he ever have to then?

As as justin put earlier if it's a hands -off thing how much how come there's so much hands getting involved here?

Well, I certainly wouldn't mean to deny god's miraculous intervention in the series of secondary causes

But in the case, for example, uh, was it ruben who said let's not kill joseph.

Let's throw him in the pit What we can say is that god knew That this brother would do that and that the others would freely listen to him rather than say that god is

Determining them to act in this way And i'm not suggesting that the biblical author had molinism in mind

Of course not what i'm saying is that this is a theory to reconcile sovereignty and human freedom

That is consistent with The bible it affirms the facts of sovereignty and freedom without bruising or Annihilating one set of the data.

This is a perfect example of a tactical mistake And when you do this in regular conversations, you'll be making the same mistake

If you question someone especially during cross -exam Do not bring up four different things in 30 seconds

Why because nobody's going to remember all four of those things Instead choose one thing the one thing that will challenge your interlocutor and ask them about that one thing white

Should only have asked about pharaoh because there is very clear language in the bible that god hardened pharaoh's heart

And that is further explored by paul in romans 9, which by the way, it's very difficult to melina your way through romans 9

Okay, so this is advantageous for white instead white asked multiple things

And guess what craig didn't answer the question about god's hardening pharaoh's heart i'd say right now Craig is enjoying a slight advantage due to some of these little mistakes by white when

I go to ephesians 1 And I talk about the eudaichia Of his thalamitas the the the kind intention that which is pleasing to him of his will

And that is made to be the very source Of everything god has done in predestination election

It's the counsel of his thalamitas his boule of his thalamitas in verses 10 11 that Determines everything it takes place.

He's worked all things After the counsel of his will Yes, how is that?

That that is that is central to what the calvinist is saying in regards to god how god is working and it is coming forth

From the text. Do you see a difference? Between that approach And what you just did with genesis 50 where you go?

Yes, this theory comes along 3 ,000 years later But we can consistently apply it

To what was written all that way back then? And come up with an interpretation of that.

Do you see a difference between having our theology derived from the text? And having something that determines what our theology can be

That comes from outside the text I don't think that your theology or the calvinist theology is derived directly from the text in that way

It seems to me that we're both trying to enunciate Theological models that will make sense of the data of scripture, but the scripture nowhere teaches unilateral divine determinism of every human act especially evil acts

Uh james, I mean the bible says god Uh canada is not evil and can they be tempted with evil and yet on this view?

It is god who moves the will of the creature To do sinful acts and then he punishes them for it

Okay, so so so I mean If it's evil to cause someone to do evil, it makes god himself evil

Is anyone keeping track of how many times craig has said that god is the author of evil? I've lost track.

Okay from a rhetorical standpoint This can be very powerful for folks in the audience to hear especially when they keep hearing it over and over again

Why does why let that go? That's that's my question. Why not address that directly?

But what he's doing is he's actually he's absorbing those body blows in order to accomplish his purpose

And this is going to start adding up for people if he does not correct these claims god brings the assyrians

To punish israel And then turns around and punishes the assyrians for the haughty attitude of their heart

How is that not more clear? than what you just said you just said that you can derive something from the text and you derived your

Your desire to say that calvinism is causing god to be the author of evil and so on and so forth And we know he won't do that you can derive something from the text in that way how come when

I go to ephesians 1 and it specifically says it is the The desire of his will that which pleases him that is that is doing all things you say well

No, you just have an outside system We agree on that james that god Issues his decree for his good pleasure

And I would say this factors into it human freedom and how human beings would choose and it is god's pleasure not to determine

Creatures to do evil not to determine them to sin And it's so ironic because you keep appealing to these scriptural examples that I think support my view

How can god? Punish the assyrians for something that he causes them to do

No, what it is is that god knowing that the syrians would freely invade at that time uses the unrighteous assyrians

To do something that he knew they would freely do and then he can justly punish them because this unrighteous act

Was done of their own Free will the freedom of yahweh to do as he pleases with his creation.

Yes isaiah 40 through 48 The fact that he not only knows the future

But that he can challenge the false gods not only to tell what the future is but to tell the past and why it happened

Demonstrates that it is god's self -revelation In he's revealing all of his attributes all of his characteristics his love his mercy his justice and his righteousness

He's revealing all of this as he pleases to reveal himself Not as he is delimited

By the creatures that he has yet to decree to make within the molinistic system

I mean these guys are shining when it comes to explaining their own view. So Good for them.

I think for people coming in here with open minds. They're going to learn a lot about uh, the two particular views i'd like to know where do you derive this because I I don't think that the molinist reading comes forth from the text of ephesians chapter one

Or romans chapter eight or any of the others so white keeps bringing it back to the scripture

How how do you get there? How do you get to molinism from the scripture? All right, hopefully we'll get to those passages.

I challenge the idea that there is a A an essence of james white

That exists outside of god's decree to make james white as james white is

That could be known as to what I would do apart from the free Expression of god's decree in making me who

I am Because it sounds to me like you're saying who I am is not the result of the expression of god's freedom

It was something god knew But how he knew we don't know so white is taking

The long way to ask questions and I think he would be better served to stop taking the long way around and just ask the questions

What he wants to know is where in the bible does it clearly teach molinism? Along the same lines as in ephesians chapter one where there is clear teaching on the nature of god in his decision making

Where is there in ephesians chapter one for molinism essentially there's?

an indefinite number of possible worlds Which could include james white in them and what i'm saying is that god doesn't determine

That that james white does evil in any of the circumstances in which he might exist.

He's going to let james white Decide for himself what he would do now

Let me answer the question about Where do I get this? Here's here's here's an argument for this

These counterfactuals of creaturely freedom are either true logically prior to the divine decree

Or they are true only logically posterior to the divine decree but they cannot be

True only logically posterior to the divine decree because that makes god

The author of evil in that case god is the one who determines How creatures would act in any of these circumstances

And therefore by the very nature of the case these counterfactuals of creaturely freedom must be true if they are true

Logically prior to the divine decree so on on pain of attributing evil to god

It seems to me that we have to say that these Counterfactuals are true logically prior to god's decree of a world

Well, I was hoping for a for biblical argumentation, um that bingo Okay, white was asking craig where in the scriptures that he derives molinism from and craig just gave a philosophical argument

So the answer is I don't derive it from any clear teaching of scripture This is exactly what white should then ask next

Would you agree then that you do not derive molinism from any clear teaching of the scripture? That is a is a philosophical construct that assumes a number of things that have already been disputed

Specifically in regards to first and secondary causation specifically in regards to how god judges the world

Uh his relationship to his creation all sorts of things like that. Is there not? Will you admit then that there is no text that we can go to that you can point to and says that?

specifically teaches Molinism that's that's where middle knowledge Of course you can't okay, neither can you go to a text in scripture that teaches unilateral divine determinism

But i've already i've already Then i'd like to to know what you do with ephesians 1 11.

What well that decree factors in god's Or human free will god everything.

Where is that in ephesians chapter 1 bill? Can someone just quote ephesians 1 11 just for those who don't have a photographic biblical memory, okay

Let me let me give get with chapter with verse 10 So we have it with a view to this is talk about he purposed according to his kind intention

There it is eutachia, which he purposed in him with a view and administration suitable the fullness of times

That is the summing up of all things in christ things in the heavens and things upon the earth

In him also we have obtained and inheritance have been predestined according to the purpose Of of hit to his purpose who works all things after the counsel of his will

So if you stare long enough at ephesians chapter 1 you see that white is making a great point

There is no consideration of human freedom with regard to what comes to pass Because it all falls under the counsel of god's own will all right go back and look at ephesians 1

Yeah, you got to be good on your scripture here, right? but where craig has a bit of a point is

Even white would confirm that humans are free to choose within the dynamic of ephesians chapter 1

So the question comes down to the type of freedom that humans possess in ephesians 1 and if you're wondering to yourself

Well, then why isn't a discussion in defense of libertarian and compatibilist freedoms being discussed here?

I don't know Like you would think it should have a place in the discussion though, right?

Well, I was going to say in terms of the biblical, uh proof texts Uh, there are lots of these counterfactuals of creaturely freedom in scripture

For example, one of my favorites is second corinthians 2 8 where paul says none of the rulers of this age understood this for if they had

They would not have crucified the lord of glory now That counterfactual creaturely freedom is true

It's in scripture. You can't say that's a truth value gap And so then my argument is is this true logically prior?

to The divine decree or only logically posterior to the divine decree

Well, hold on a second. That is a biblical proof text for Counterfactuals to human freedom though, right but to do my best craig impersonation

These counterfactuals are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for molinism

All right, by the way calvinists don't dispute counterfactuals to human freedom as far as i'm aware They accept this category of discussion where they push back or where they dispute

Is in what craig just said they would say these freedoms exist after god's decree because of the counsel of his will

So in terms of biblical support, this is not a slam dunk by any stretch All right, but maybe craig will appeal to more scripture.

I I have to give bill kudos because unlike some molinists Bill has been willing to go.

Well, if this is true Then these are some things that follow from this and one of the things that that bill has brought up Has been to say well, maybe maybe there are people who would never accept christ

That god knows because of middle knowledge, they would never accept christ And maybe they're the only people that are lost is that they would never be saved in any feasible world

And I sit back and I go Okay Is that are we really suggesting that the apostle paul believed that that that he did all those discussions

Of sovereignty and the will of man and predestination election and he missed that he didn't know about that See from a calvinist perspective.

This is what paul helms said He said the same thing i'm saying right now That changes the expression of god's sovereignty in his decree from an expression of his personal

Being pleased to do it in this way to something where he's limited to feasible worlds.

It's putting together a Massively complex lego set but the the shape of the legos was determined by somebody else not the eudachia of god

That is the key issue here laying that framework. Okay. Here's here's what bill's doing

Here's what i'm doing. So the audience can make a more informed decision on the matter good Well, certainly they are different perspectives

And I think the essence of the difference is that the one is a form of unilateral divine determinism where god determines everything that happens even evil choices of people and it seems to me that that makes god evil right for Being the author of evil the other view so again

What is this like the 12th time that craig has said god is the author of evil? Somebody should go back and just watch and see how many times craig says god is the author of evil or implies that And then somebody should count how many times james white says essence of essence of right?

And then that can turn into a whole other game. Here's the deal though white really should have corrected Craig on this and he didn't it looks like these are maybe closing statements so to speak the time has passed

Instead of just saying the words, you know secondary causation and mentioning jonathan edwards as an aside

White should have explained all of this to the audience. What a missed opportunity, but bill wait a minute the evil that exists

God knew would exist When he looked at the feasible worlds and yet he brought this evil into existence but not for any purpose in revealing his own character

No He didn't bring the evil into existence james. He brought into existence the circumstances and the free creatures in them

Knowing the how they would choose and so his permissive will Is to allow creatures to do things that his absolute will

Disagrees with his absolute will is that in any situation a creature would always do the right thing

But he knows that often they will do evil things and so he permits that to happen with a view toward These greater goods what

I just want to resist with every fiber of my being here. It is is that god moves creatures to do

Evil, so I love the Westminster confession that you were quoting before and I agree

I wonder if you can appreciate how much closer In terms of functionality if I can use that word how much closer

Molinism and calvinism are than you think because craig just spoke like a calvinist in those last few seconds.

It's amazing Principally speaking the calvinist is going to give a very similar answer when it's his turn in the hot seat

Because guess what both calvinists and molinists have to answer the problem of evil and god's control

Over whether or not evil takes place in the world that he created Molinists say god shapes circumstances out of which evil derives from human choice

Which by the way humans would always choose to do evil in the world that god actualizes And calvinists say god shapes human desires out of which evil derives from human choice.

I mean It's a fascinating discussion. He keeps saying that god is moving people's wills to do things

He is restraining evil God is not sitting we aren't a bunch of innocent individuals and god's putting his gun in his back of our hand go go do evil things

That nowhere has that has that been been even hinted at? And it's interesting that you can talk about permissive wills and yet when the reformed person talks about god's sovereign decree and then his his his prescriptive will

Somehow that's just that that's just dismissed out of hand Uh, this is this is where i'm really having having a problem because when god

God directly says I do what I please in heaven and on earth And it sounds to me what you're what you're saying is

Only within a certain realm because he is delimited by these subjunctive counterfactuals of creaturely freedom

That you haven't explained the origin of The thing about molinism is that it is extremely fruitful

Theologically and I have applied it to the exclusivity of salvation through christ to the problem of perseverance of the saints

Uh and to the inspiration of scripture it is an extremely fecund source of theological insight for the one who

Who uses it but we can't talk about those things That's interesting the way that craig talks about molinism right here he he said, uh, fruitful and and fecund

You know fecund means fertile i'm more of the mind that our evaluation has to rest on its truthfulness or Perhaps its biblical support.

So i'm in line with you know white on this one Uh, regardless of whether or not it's fruitful, but see now i'm being super picky

Uh, look you all get the gist from the video both craig and white did pretty well Uh white strategy of framing the discussion around biblical support was pretty solid

I mean white brought up a much stronger verse to support himself in ephesians 1 than craig did in first corinthians 2

And that's a really big deal On the other hand white missed a number of opportunities to challenge craig and kind of meandered when asking more pointed questions to clash

And craig took advantage of those missteps on white's part I'd say craig had better responses when it came to explaining and evaluating

The coherence of molinism as a system. He even provided a philosophical argument for it and gave a more substantive answer to white's

Grounding challenge than simply just admitting god just knows, you know But here's my issue just like the peterson versus harris video.

I did There are no opening statements. There are no rebuttals No true crossfire to reveal specific contentions and challenges to those contentions

This is just one of those informal discussions where these guys could be sipping on coffee at starbucks and just going at it

So it's hard for me to like really fully adjudicate at the end of the day, even though i'm really grateful for the discussion

Some of you I could totally understand would say Craig did a better job of handling himself than white but some of you are really going to put

Uh the emphasis on the scripture in which case white handled himself way better than craig did.

You know what? Here's the deal. I'm grateful for the discussion from a debate standpoint It wasn't perfect, but I hope y 'all have more information walking away from the discussion than you did before That's it for me for 2021.

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to say happy new year everybody and guess what? I will return soon on the next video.