Molinism VS Calvinism: Reviewing the BIG 'Debate'

Tim Stratton and Tyson James review the long-awaited discussion between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. James White regarding what view -- Molinism or Calvinism -- best answers the Problem of Evil.

Then watch us!

Here's Tyson's article he discussed in our conversation:

[terryhollifield]

What stuck out most to me was that White didn't actually come out and give the Calvinist answer to the Problem of Evil, but his clearly implied answer is unapologetically that God is the ultimate cause of evil. Shockingly, White asserts that it is a teaching derived from Scripture when in actuality that is explicitly denied by Scripture; and the notion of God being the author of evil has rightly been condemned as heresy by the church.

[trevoradams]

Unfortunately White’s best response to the problem of evil under Calvinism was to smirk and shake his head.

[PreciousMeddler]

Isn't rejecting an idea for being philosophically grounded and not biblically grounded, itself philosophical?

[jeffscottkennedy]

Dr Stratton, I appreciate your kindness and Christian charity when it comes to White.
Your attitude of humility when presenting a paper on this subject before your esteemed mentor was excellent and appropriate.
However, White has been notorious for not showing his brothers this same charitable Spirit. Case in point: I was an adjunct proff at Liberty University’s divinity school during the whole Ergun Caner debacle. Caner (Chancellor of Divinity School) turned out to be a fake former muslim, and lied about aspects of his Islamic upbringing. At that time, White issued a series of scathing take downs on this brother. At the same time, others were looking into White’s own educational credentials. Turns out that two “doctorates” were bogus. He basically had a mail order “doctorate” from an unaccredited school with no campus, no library, and no course of study. All while he allowed himself to be introduced in debates and speeches as “Dr White”. In his conversation with Bill Craig on Unbelievable today, he repeatedly referred to himself as a “theologian.” Yet, he does not publish on this subject nor present papers in this field.
You and I both have earned doctorates we had to defend before a committee. I have two such degrees (one from Talbot). And as interested in, and knowledgeable as I have become on this subject I can’t imagine myself talking to Craig as if I were his credentialed equal.
Again, I appreciate your charitable spirit. But someone has to point out that we were not watching a “debate” between two scholars of equal accomplishment in this field of study. Only Craig fit that bill.

[Bdk]

I can tell WLC had a huge impact on Tim in the way he speaks, annunciates and lays out his points in a similar way to Craig. Love both Dr White and Dr Craig! Nice video

[Papasquatch]

I just bought your book. It hasn’t arrived yet I look forward to seeing your insights on Molinism. As soon as I understood that there was such a thing it seem to fit reality perfectly. I’ve listen to everything I could on Arminianism and Calvinism. And now I’ve listen to everything I can including this on Molinism. I’m not sure what their hangup is. From what I see, Molinism fixes both problems with Calvinism and Arminianism

[TheLastAndFutureDay]

Great discussion! Hopefully this will draw more Calvinists out to hear what Molinists themselves actually believe and why they believe it - and not be informed solely by Dr. White.

[drewm]

White affirmed that he was a determinist. The idea that God causally determines us to sin but isn't the author of sin is an incoherent statement. He might as well have argued that up is down and black is white. It's no different than Catholics who say that the bread and wine in the Eucharist cease to be bread and wine without changing their atomic structure. It's blathering nonsense.

[TheChurchSplit]

Really enjoyed this discussion! Keep it up guys.

[chanarnett]

Great job guys. I had many thoughts on their discussion and while I shouldn’t be surprised, I thought White was way under prepared and has much trouble thinking outside of determinism and therefore can’t readily handle objections to it. Great analysis by you guys though!

[jachinputnam]

"Has James White shown any grown in his understanding of Molinism?" Your response, "No."

Literally the first thing I posted about the debate after watching it was, "Dr. White is just as incorrigible as ever."

[TheLastAndFutureDay]

White: "Molinism was invented 1500 years after Christ"

Also White: *holds to Calvinistic Compatibilism invented 1700 years after Christ.*

[chrisharris]

Theistic determinism, compatibilism in specific, doesn’t negate human freedom. You seem to beg the question that human freedom just is libertarian freedom. Could you support that claim?

[jessetoler]

Jer 19:5 "and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind—"

So, since these acts never entered into the mind of God, did he decree them? If so, then at least this one event was unknown to God yet in his decree.

[curtisdupree]

Craig actually attempted to answer the question. I respect White’s work in many areas, but he just attacked Molinism and didn’t really address the debate question.

[lawrencestanley]

I have said this before elsewhere, but in light of the recent White / Stratton debate, I believe that it bears repeating.

William L. Craig suggests that there are certain truths that do not require a “truth maker, ” that is, they are true just because they are true, and they do not need any grounding, and that these subjunctive conditionals fall under that definition.

However, it is declared of Jesus in both John 1:14, 17 and John 14:6 that He IS the truth, and Ephesians 4:21 declares that “truth is in Jesus.” John 14:17, 15:26, and 16:13 speaks of the Holy Spirit as the “Spirit of truth;” 1 John 5:6 declares that “the Spirit is the truth, ” and Isaiah 65:16 declares Him to be “the God of truth.” But this does not mean that He merely aligns Himself with truth as men do in Exodus 18:21, as if truth were some external standard with which He must align, and we know this because, as we have already seen, the scriptures declare that Yahweh IS the truth. We see in John 17:17 that the word of Yahweh is truth, that is, the intangible, sanctifying, essence of Yahweh is truth, and that this truth became flesh. Elsewhere we see that “from Him and through Him and to Him are all things” (Romans 11:36), that is to say, Yahweh is the source, sustainer, and the rightful end of “all things” (see also 1 Corinthians 8:6, 15:28, Ephesians 1:23, 4:6, Hebrews 2:10).

Because the Bible everywhere declares Yahweh to be THE truth, and in John 14:6, Jesus declares Himself to be THE way, THE truth, and THE life, if anywhere there ever was truth that existed completely apart from Yahweh (such as subjunctive conditionals), then no truth could ever be called “THE” truth, since there would be more than one of them. Therefore any truth, if it is truth at all, is derived from Him who IS the truth (Colossians 1:16-20), and any assertion to the contrary, that a particular truth is outside of Him, or that some truth can exist without any grounding, is simply false according to the word of Yahweh. To assert otherwise, given what Jesus said in John 14:6, if there is another “truth, ” that is, if there is some truth not derived from Yahweh, then there is also another “way, ” and we know that this is false.

Because all truth has its grounding in Yahweh (cf. Psalm 31:5), how is it that anyone can then assert that there can exist “truth” about the creation that has no grounding? This can only come from an extra-biblical narrative, because according to scripture, no aspect of creation (no truth about creation) can exist outside of the Creator and His eternal decree (cf. Ephesians 1:11, 3:11, Romans 11:36). Therefore, according to scripture, subjunctive conditionals (as defined by Molinism) are false, and therefore, Molinism is false.

[euged]

It seems the debate would've been a lot more on-topic (and for me, fruitful) if Justin moderated the discussion toward that end...such an important issue and yet so little actual time discussing it. Even White mentioned in the beginning that he'd like to jump into the depths right away, versus "the last 5 minutes" of the debate. Unless of course the whole thing *was* the depth of it and I missed the part about how White actually defended his particular Theodicy.

[malirk]

I think Calvinism solves the problem of evil but with a horrific solution. We're basically left with a God that knowingly makes people to suffer and burn. The idea of middle knowledge is a broken work around and the idea of free will allowing us to sin (And thus evil exists) creates the problem of free will in Heaven.

No matter how I look at it, we're left with plot holes in the story of who this God is.

[taylorj.]

My guess is the people leveling the claim about not believing in inerrancy towards Craig are YEC's who don't like his work on the historical Adam, especially his comments on mytho-history.

Loved the commentary! I agree and don't think White ever addressed the charge that EDD makes God the author of evil.

[jamessheffield]

Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.