Still Reviewing the Craig vs White debate on Molinism

Eric Hernandez, now with a great internet connection, joins Dr. Flowers once again to review the discussion between Drs. William Lane Craig and James White over which philosophical worldview best answers the problem of evil, Calvinism (determinism) or Molinism (libertarianism).

JOIN US FOR A LIVE DISCUSSION!

Or @soteriology101 on Twitter

Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!

[kaylanobaka]

Dr. Flowers; first off, I just want to say thank you for your videos. I'm a new believer (4 months in!) and came across calvinism about 2 months in and was deeply disturbed and anxious because I have a lot of unsaved loved ones I was praying for, so your videos have helped me tremendously. However, the fear I felt wouldn't let up until I had this dream where I was told to read Proverbs 8. When I read it that morning, it was like a huge weight had lifted off my shoulders and I suddenly felt so silly for worrying about it. That passage has become my favorite so far just because of how much it spoke to me about this issue. If you could, I would love to see you do a video on Proverbs 8 and see if it supports provisionism as I've heard other people say it alludes to Jesus. Thank you again for all of your work and may God bless you!

[StevenWayneJones]

You really need to have Eric on more often, his precision of language and specific expertise philosophically pairs perfectly with you in this discussion. So so good! I am baffled how a guy like White can be so blind to his own errors and can’t see the stark inconsistencies when he speaks. It must be a terrible thing to try and hold together.

[EricHernandez]

As always, such a pleasure being on to have these kinds of deep discussions.

[DrVarner]

Eric, did Flowers get you that raise?

[chrispedayo]

My friend has tremendous skill when it comes to drawing but he chose not to pursue being an artist. With all due respect, White's argument about having a set of skills seemingly determining what we do is weak.

[janetdavis]

I wish I was as smart as you guys! Thank God there are people like you two. Good work!, 😻

[cousinbryan]

I knew James White was going to defend Calvinism in this debate, which means I MADE him defend Calvinism. BEHOLD MY POWER!

[robinduncan]

Thank you, Dr. Leighton Flowers and Eric Hernandez!! Fantastic broadcast and a very edifying discussion!
All Glory to our Almighty Father! Amen ♥️

[johnsteven]

JW: “…from whence comes?”

JW fanboys: OOOOHHH!!!

[quickattackfilms]

This guy Eric Hernandez is a smart dude. Does a great job decoding what they’re actually saying. I was lost most of the time lol. God bless him

[christopherleewilliams]

These kind of talk/debates require pausing often throughout, and then asking the question: “what do you mean when you say that/this?, ” then base the discussion off of those answers.

[DrVarner]

It is not outside of His control, God simply chooses to give freedom of choice to man.

[trailtrs]

Why should a Calvinist seek to change anyones mind on these things?? Don’t they believe that God determines everything, including what you believe?

[trailtrs]

So good to see someone line Eric who seems to have a really good understanding of Aristotles concept of FORMS and his explanation of “incidentals” re the central FORM.

[richardcoords]

1:01:49: What is there to restrain or permit if there is no free will? Good question. Same principle applies to divine hardening.

[AndrewJohnH]

This hit me when you shared the Nolan Ryan analogy:

Contrary to James White's opinion, God choosing to limit the exercise of His power is NOT anti-biblical, or against His glory... how could it be when the fruit of the Spirit includes gentleness? What is gentleness if not limiting the exercise of your power to the appropriate level for the circumstance?

[sandypidgeon]

If one turns to the "Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" in the "free will and predestination" section, EVERY church father talks about free will, not determinism. Justin Martyr, Clement, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origin, and the list goes on. Most of the Scripture is laid out in the beginning of the chapter, such as, Isa. 1:19-20, Proverbs 1:29-31, Rev 3:10-12, to name a few. Also, why would GOD need to "harden Pharaoh's heart" if Pharaoh was already "totally depraved"? Calvinism, systematically applied, makes no sense. If one reads the opening pages of Calvin's vol 1, Calvin doesn't even think man is TOTALLY depraved. Calvin says we have a knowledge of GOD on the FIRST page! Prevenient grace!

[ruthgar]

At 1:07-08 mark, Leighton notes White uses Provisionism (non or anti exhaustive determinist language). Almost all Calvinists do that as well even when it’s the point at hand. Lay people may not get it, but clearly the guys like White do. It’s intentional deception at that point. I remember being taught at an SBC seminary how to parse questions about Calvinism for lay people to avoid the issue. It was also modeled by professors. Calvinism is a blight on the heart, mind and soul for those like White.

[seekthetruth]

really good point about grammar coming first, then scripture. On top of that, Proverbs talks about the importance of having common sense. Think about that. It is not talking about "scripture sense." It is saying that a type of knowledge that is properly basic is available and is good to have to everyone.

[jrhemmerich]

Some here seem to conclude that James White is self-deceived or being intentionally deceptive. It’s not so much that there is intentional deception, some of it is that it’s just complicated. The other factor is that Calvinism is rooted in Thomistic classical theism. This tradition makes causality and God’s knowledge of the future the most obviously true starting point, and works out a proof of God based upon causality. Some calvinists defend divine determinism based upon those premises and try to fit human responsibility into that picture. This is done: 1) by an appeal to mystery about human and divine freedom (for The Provisionist the mystery is in God’s knowledge, while the starting point is human freedom and responsibility); 2) to appeal to an transcendent author model of human responsibility (God scripted it, but humans are the actors that do it and so responsible); 3) that humans had free will in Adam but lost it on account of sin (by their original nature they are free but in light of Adam’s choice—and sometimes their own choice—they are not able to act to free themselves from their own past sinful actions that separate them from God)(while very similar to libertarian freedom at the start, it’s not quite, because moral choices can affect the degree of future contra-causal options). This last category of calvinists are those most likely to reject the label of theistic determinism.

I agree that James is confusing when he answers the question why is God not responsible for sin with the idea that God finds man in sin and simply restrains it. His answer assumes number 3, but his objections to molinism are mostly rooted in perspective number 2. I think James is not settled in his mind about whether he is in camp 2 or 3 and thus, his answers are not as consistent or direct as they might be.

Because he is committed to Thomistic causality and creation ex nihilo, he is reacting against the idea of an uncaused will of man from nowhere. That is really the substance of his problem with molinism as he understands it (and reasonably so as causality is important to the Kalam argument and ex nihilo is taught in Gen 1:1). Given James’ lack of articulating his assumptions behind the the origins of sin, one wonders whether a calvinist who holds to 3 consistently, might embrace molinism and still be a calvinist. Such a view would hold men are free by nature but have lost their freedom through sin (this sounds like RC Sproul’s view and Augustine says similar things).

If successful, the arminian and the calvinist might agree on molinism, but still disagree on prevenient grace (freedom being restored generally according to the arminian/provisionist, but only particularly according to the calvinist). Thus, the disagreement would no longer be about philosophical (ontological) freedom, but soteriological freedom. I think this line of inquiry interesting and possibly fruitful.

(Note, James is also a presuppositionalist, so would likely not self-consciously see himself as holding to Thomistic causality, but that is the history of where calvinism in its more determinist forms came from. It’s an oversimplification but helpful to see that the Dominicans are basically the Catholic Calvinists (but not always), and the Jesuits are the Catholic Arminians and sometimes Molinists).