James white on William Lane Craig & Molinism

[RBerman]

I think we can use elements of Molinism in Calvinism. Yes, God decides everything. But he doesn't make people do random or arbitrary actions. He plans the world in such a way that people act in accordance to their character and motivations. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense to hold them responsible for anything. Thus when God is creating his plans, he maintains the integrity of the people who are part of it. This involves something like middle knowledge: an appreciation of what a certain person will do in certain circumstances.

I've often thought that discussions on this subject tend to use the wrong kinds of metaphors. We tend to speak of the way God operates in ways that make it sound mechanistic. I wonder if we wouldn't be better off thinking of God as an artist. Like a novelist, God chooses the way he wants things to go. Yet novelists often tell us that their characters take on a certain reality, and end up doing things that the author didn't originally expect. An artist manages to maintain control of the story, making it do what he intended, while also maintaining the integrity of the characters. I wonder if we wouldn't be better off to think of God as being a master artist who manages to maintain a similar balance.

I agree that God doesn't make people do "random or arbitrary actions." God always acts with purpose, for His own glory. But I hope the second paragraph isn't intended to imply that people ever "end up doing things that [God] didn't originally expect." God's knowledge and wisdom are eternally perfect, right? God doesn't have faulty expectations, ever.

[hedrick]

No, God doesn't have any faculty expectations. I was speaking of human authors. Even for them that can be true only in a metaphorical sense, since the author actually writes everything that their character does. However I have seen authors say that sort of thing.

I believe God is outside of time, since he created it. If that's true, then he sees our entire world line from outside our 4-space. So in some slightly imprecise sense, it would seem that he sees our whole lives "at once." In addition to this, did he forsee everything when he was planning creation? I'm inclined to say so. But to make this precise requires knowing more about God, and the dimension in which he functions, than I do.

[hedrick]

PS: RBerman knows what I think, because of other discussions, but other readers may not. In some ways I find "open theology", in which God may not know the future, attractive. But it has one fatal flaw. It's not consistent with God as creator. If he created the universe, he can't be inside it. GIven what we know of relativity, that means he can't be within time, except in his incarnate form.

[Obsidian]

timspong, if you can answer these two questions, then my generalization does not apply to you:

1. Do I believe in Jesus?
2. Am I sure that I'm one of the elect?

A lot of monergists have trouble with that second one.

[Kenny]

Catholics also believe in God. Do we have to give that up too?

I'm not a Molinist. I am a Calvinist. But this deserved the "Amen" I gave it.

[Dee Dee Warren]

You thought that White did a good job on those shows? Are you smoking crack? I listen to White regularly and enjoy his shows but that was the worst case of emotionalism I have heard from him in a long time. He used the precise type of arguments that he criticizes others for, arguments from outrage and the like.

White can be very mean-spirited and arrogant when it comes to other Christians. But then again, he can read my heart and declare that I hate the sovereignty of God. I mean that is why Arminians exist right?

And yes he does say things like that, which, is just stupid. To me that bespeaks of a certain insecurity. I think dispensationalism is wrong, but I believe that dispensationalists genuinely believe at this time that is what the bible teaches, not that they have some psychological motive that absolutely causes them to believe that. Now do psychological motives come into play with all systems. Yes, I think so. But White carries it way too far and mocks others Christians way too much, but when people do it to him (like when JPHolding gave him what he dishes out) he gets all high and mighty.

IMHO Dr. White has made an idol of Calvinism in one respect. I was in his chat room, and they all sided with a hyperpreterist against me because the hyperpreterist was a Calvinist. So, it is okay to deny the Second Coming and resurrection as long as you are a Calvinist.

I know Dr. White keeps logs of all the IRC chats. This would have been about three years ago, around the time he was fighting with JP. He can pull it and show me I am mistaken. Though I think it is beyond obsessive to keep IRC chat logs for that long considering how long they are. But let him pull it.

(FWIW, we don't keep Paltalk chat logs)

[Dee Dee Warren]

timspong, if you can answer these two questions, then my generalization does not apply to you:

1. Do I believe in Jesus?
2. Am I sure that I'm one of the elect?

A lot of monergists have trouble with that second one.

I don't know of any monogergists that have problems with the second one that anyone doesn't have. IOW you are in a glass house with that.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Michael Patton of Reclaiming The Mind recently had a blog suggesting Calvinists cool it and that they too often go after Arminians in a way they shouldn't. (Keep in mind Patton is a Calvinist.)

I commented in it some and saw someone ask "How can we work alongside someone in evangelism whose outlook is so different from ours?"

I replied with "Come to TheologyWeb where we do it every day."

It's for a reason like that that I respect someone like Patton more than White however in that he saw the problem and for many of us who don't like the debate, it's because we've seen the way Calvinists debate it. I have many good friends on here who are Calvinists and they never mention it. I have no problem with it being discussed, but too often, people like White make it seem like those of us who are more of an Arminian bent are second-class Christians in rebellion against God. (Note I also teach God is sovereign. I just don't see it the same way White does.)

[Kenny]

I agree with Dizzle’s assessment of White’s mean spiritedness. And White’s objections to Molinism were, for the most part, just stupid (“The is just Star Trek Stuff!”). White obviously doesn’t understand Molinism and is unaware of Molinist responses to many of the objections that he raised (which is ironic, because he criticized Craig for not addressing Calvinist responses to the arguments that Craig made).

All that being said, I do think that White handed it to Craig when it came to many of the theological and exegetical points that White brought up. Craig was laying out a (predominately) classical Wesleyan view, with all of its inherent weaknesses and White exploited that. The thing I don’t understand though is why Craig is so married to a classical Wesleyan view. He has resources as a Molinist to have a non-Calvinistic system that avoids a lot of the weakness of classical Wesleyanism. I’m puzzled by the fact that he doesn’t exploit them.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yes Kenny, that was the gist of most of his objections, well-poisoning, no better than dumb objections to Calvinism which I oppose just as well. He also picked on certain phrases Craig used reading so much bad into them rather than being charitable. Frankly, the way he behaves with Molinism IMHO seems insecure.

One thing that really bothers me is that clip he plays of Steve Gregg saying "Read my book," when Dr. White says that all the time!

I believe that White is wrong in a fundamentalist (bad definition, not original definition) when he mocks Craig in saying Molinism is a philosophical construct because there isn't simplistic proof-texts. It is a philosophical construct that is an attempt to make sense of all the texts. Calvinism is a philosophical construct too in that it relies on compatibilism. Poo-pooing philosophy is wrong-headed. Philosophy tells us how the Trinity is not a contradiction etc.

I am work hand in hand with a Calvinist on preteristblog Roderick Edwards and he never treats me like that. White turned me off on Calvinism for years, now interacting with some gracious ones very closely (Dr. Talbot of WTS who gave me a full scholarship) and Roderick has caused me to rethink some things. White is not doing Calvinism any favours, and his "channel rat" fans come off as sychophants.

[Obsidian]

I don't know of any monogergists that have problems with the second one that anyone doesn't have. IOW you are in a glass house with that.

Free Gracers don't have that problem.

You are right that many non-Calvinists have a similar problem -- and I actually understated the problem with Calvinism. The hardcore Calvinist can place his trust in the atonement but yet nonetheless doubt whether he was ever saved, because he equates faith with "perseverence" (defined in various ways, but often requiring a godly lifestyle of good works). So he not only doubts that he will wind up saved in the end, but he implicitly adds works back into the mix. He wonders if he was ever saved in the first place, or if his faith were insufficient.

At least an Arminian who believes mostly in sola fide, but believes he can lose his salvation through apostacy (E.g., Martin Luther and the Free Will Baptists), doesn't redefine faith as faith + perseverence.

The moment you say that your faith and works derive 100% from God, you have a tendency to ask yourself, Well if God has given me 'true faith' through his sovereignty, why hasn't he given me lots of good works, too? Why am I not doing a better job of 'persevering'? Maybe I don't have 'true faith.'

Of course, whoever knows what "true faith" actually is...

[timspong]

timspong, if you can answer these two questions, then my generalization does not apply to you:

1. Do I believe in Jesus?
2. Am I sure that I'm one of the elect?

A lot of monergists have trouble with that second one.

Yes and Yes.

I can be sure of 2 because I can tell that the HS is actively working within me to realign my desires towards a more godly orientation. 1John outlines how we can be assured of salvation, by painting a picture of how the HS sanctifies the heart.

I believe that the very definition of a Christian is one who has the indwelt HS and is a guarantee of our salvation.

Furthermore, I think it is not possible to discern the HS in others other than observing the outworking of the HS within them and the changes it produces.

[timspong]

You thought that White did a good job on those shows? Are you smoking crack? I listen to White regularly and enjoy his shows but that was the worst case of emotionalism I have heard from him in a long time. He used the precise type of arguments that he criticizes others for, arguments from outrage and the like.

White can be very mean-spirited and arrogant when it comes to other Christians. But then again, he can read my heart and declare that I hate the sovereignty of God. I mean that is why Arminians exist right?

And yes he does say things like that, which, is just stupid. To me that bespeaks of a certain insecurity. I think dispensationalism is wrong, but I believe that dispensationalists genuinely believe at this time that is what the bible teaches, not that they have some psychological motive that absolutely causes them to believe that. Now do psychological motives come into play with all systems. Yes, I think so. But White carries it way too far and mocks others Christians way too much, but when people do it to him (like when JPHolding gave him what he dishes out) he gets all high and mighty.

IMHO Dr. White has made an idol of Calvinism in one respect. I was in his chat room, and they all sided with a hyperpreterist against me because the hyperpreterist was a Calvinist. So, it is okay to deny the Second Coming and resurrection as long as you are a Calvinist.

I know Dr. White keeps logs of all the IRC chats. This would have been about three years ago, around the time he was fighting with JP. He can pull it and show me I am mistaken. Though I think it is beyond obsessive to keep IRC chat logs for that long considering how long they are. But let him pull it.

(FWIW, we don't keep Paltalk chat logs)

I think that most people would recognize White as belligerent and arrogant although I still agree with much of what he ascribes to (although certainly not everything). I guess it is harder to perceive emotionalism when it mirrors ones own perspective, although I do think these particular shows were really opinion pieces rather than scholarly refutation.

Basically I think he is implying an occams razor type of objection where one has to go to great convoluted lengths in synthesizing biblical concepts just to keep the idea of libertarian free will in play.

Generally I find reformed theology to be a very simple and elegant synthesis of the biblical text. I have spent many years trying to find a way around it but have yet to find anything that has anywhere near the same ability in this regards.

[timspong]

Free Gracers don't have that problem.

You are right that many non-Calvinists have a similar problem -- and I actually understated the problem with Calvinism. The hardcore Calvinist can place his trust in the atonement but yet nonetheless doubt whether he was ever saved, because he equates faith with "perseverence" (defined in various ways, but often requiring a godly lifestyle of good works). So he not only doubts that he will wind up saved in the end, but he implicitly adds works back into the mix. He wonders if he was ever saved in the first place, or if his faith were insufficient.

At least an Arminian who believes mostly in sola fide, but believes he can lose his salvation through apostacy (E.g., Martin Luther and the Free Will Baptists), doesn't redefine faith as faith + perseverence.

The moment you say that your faith and works derive 100% from God, you have a tendency to ask yourself, Well if God has given me 'true faith' through his sovereignty, why hasn't he given me lots of good works, too? Why am I not doing a better job of 'persevering'? Maybe I don't have 'true faith.'

Of course, whoever knows what "true faith" actually is...

I think one needs to go one step back from faith itself and recognize the work of the HS within the heart. For me it is relatively easy as my life did a complete 180. For those who were brought up in the church and/or have led a pretty decent life, I think it may be a bit more difficult as the changes would be relatively more subtle.

It is pretty easy to fake faith, but to fake the indwelt HS from a personal perspective is pretty much impossible IMO unless one is quite delusional.

[Pate]

I like most of White's stuff when it comes to critiques of Islam and the cults. But somehow he seems blind and unfair when it comes to the issue of Calvinism.

There was one particular episode of the Dividing Line where White was criticizing Islam. Two of his criticisms were that

1. "All doesn't mean all" in some passage of the Quran or the Hadith.
2. According to Islam, Allah can arbitrarily choose to save some and damn others.

Aren't those criticism just a bit odd for someone who's a Calvinist?