Hope you all enjoy this. If you want more from the show subscribe to our newsletter www.premier.org.uk/resource/unbelievable/

WLC: “He was giving Scrooge a hypothetical knowledge of subjunctive conditional propositions…” Me: *furiously flipping through a dictionary*

Would like to commend Dr. Craig for consistently staying on topic, articulating his position as an answer to the debate question rather than just trying to defame the opposing position and go on the attack. He exemplified the qualities of love, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control. Effectively he exhibited the fruits of he spirit.

William Lane Craig reminds me of my father in the very best way. He is gracious and loving and humble. Always respectful and tactful. I always appreciate the eloquent, clear way in which he explains deep concepts. Though I don't align fully with Dr. Craig on a select few Christian topics (like the age of the earth, for example) I deeply admire his knowledge and wisdom, his work for the Gospel and his debating style. This debate was very helpful for me and wow, the moderator does an excellent job! James White isn't my cup of tea when it comes to debating and I feel he avoids the difficult questions. I also find him far less respectful and tactful towards others than a lot of the people on the opposing side to Reformed Theology. But with that said, I do respect Dr. White as a brother in Christ and for the work he has done for the Kingdom. Excellent video, overall.

It has always seemed more sovereign and awe inspiring that God WILL achieve his will THROUGH the free will of man rather than by controlling mans will. It seems that meticulously controlling and moving each piece to accomplish his will insinuates that if he didn't do that, it would spiral out of his control.

Justin: tries to explain Molinism WLC: "That was very close, Justin"

Justin, you’re probably the best moderator I’ve ever seen in any debate ever.

I have been a calvinist all my life but after listening to Dr. Craig‘s arguments and how it solves the divine dilemma, molinism makes way more sense

WLC was being very nice here. He usually goes scorched earth and intellectually annihilates his opponents. This is brotherly love being shown by Craig.

I cannot believe this debate is happening. I have wrestled with Calvinism for at least 5 years and love both of these guys. And I couldn't think of a more perfect host for this debate than Unbelievable. Thank you for making this happen.

I'm honestly shocked at this. I really thought WLC was never going to debate James White. This is a huge deal. ( I know it's not a formal debate. You don't have to tell me this.)

Man, just watching this again and it really makes me wish WLC would do more "in house" debates. Whenever he does, he performs so well and it's fascinating to see the dialogue between two brothers who hold very different theological positions.

I was not baptized into Calvin or Arminias or Molina. I've leaned toward Calvinism, and the church I worship at and love is led by Calvinist pastors who are passionate godly men. I have always struggled with the irresistible grace and limited atonement aspects of Calvinism. I do believe my salvation is all of God, and my sin is all of me. I've never found the arguments for Calvinistic determinism not making God the author of evil convincing. R.C. Sproul Jr. has said that God is the author/creator of sin, and i find that view abhorrent. At the end of the day, i find Molinism's position on middle knowledge compelling in that it gives God all the glory for my salvation and makes me responsible for my sin. I know i am an ignorant fool who can not comprehend the mind of God, and there are undoubtedly things i get wrong. That is why i will continue to strive to know and love and worship Him more and, in the end, put all my faith in Jesus.

I am a Molinist, not a Calvinist. but I'm so thankful for both these men and for this discussion. I'm willing to have my mind changed, and I am listening very carefully to Dr White because of his clear thought and committed position. Thank you both, all three of you, in fact.

I like to think I'm theologically smart, and then I listen to Bill and James, and realize I have so much more to learn

Such a great conversation. As a History/ Philosophy double major who was born again after three years of research, these types of conversations help me lead me to a denomination. It’s hard for me to not believe in free will.

Seems a bit hubristic to me that James White can say that Molinism is an external ideology that WLC is backwards applying to scripture but then turn around and say that Calvinism isn’t the same thing? Both of these thought systems are in the same category: theological frameworks that attempt to make sense of scriptural data. For White to say that Calvinism is exempt from this label and that it is 100% scripturally evident is simply a claim with no objective evidence from scripture. He came across as very intellectually close minded and dishonest here.

This was a great conversation! I appreciate what both had to say, however, I found it slightly annoying that White presupposed his reading of scripture was the historically biblically accurate one, by ignoring the fact that Molinism also accounted for the same divine decree passages that he believed supported Calvinism. In the end, WLC's interpretation (imho) came out on top because it accounts for the best of White's passages, including all of the passages that teach free will (1 Cor 1:13 comes to mind, etc) and counterfactuals. In addition, it doesn't have the gigantic issue of God being the author of evil, which is something that doesn't sit at all comfortably with the whole of scripture imho. But kudos for Craig and White having a respectful convo about this topic!

Re-watching this and I can't help but notice how JW keeps on begging the question. He (unknowingly?) pleads special treatment for his view on sovereignty. I'm surprised how he appeals to the recency of the Calvinistic theological model against Molinism, when he knows early Christians did not hold to theistic determinism? That they were actually against it. His argument lies on what he calls a "delimitating authority", and trying to make sense of his position he does indeed commit a fallacy in assuming that the counterfactual truths require a "maker". Counterfactuals if we understand that Logic flows from God (cf. Geisler), are truths that we can attribute to the facts/truths that's rooted in the very non-contradicting logic of God, in consideration of His determination to create free creatures. Thus, there's no need for a direct "maker" of the counterfactual truths. James also never addressed the issue thrown that Calvinism's logical implications (and some plainly admit) is that God is the author of evil (which is completely unbiblical and even blasphemous). He neither defended it nor affirmed it, he simply ignored it. The closest that he came to addressing it is reading from the Westminster Confession. James' argument is just not sound and I think WLC went easy on him really out of brotherly love. I'm surprised that some think JW did well on this conversation.

Enjoying the discussion. I have read a majority of WLC's works and enjoyed them thoroughly. My issue with WLC's statements about free will is this: God exists in and out of time - He is the only constant. The moment He spoke reality into existence (Gen 1:1), He also spoke reality to its completion (Rev 22:20). The story was finished the moment it began. God knew every structure at the atomic level and every moment that would happen - according to His will. God has a priori knowledge (spiritual) of every a posteriori (temporal) event. If it was/is allowed, it was deemed so at the moment of creation. We are not experiencing events in the same manner as God, and we attempt to place ourselves at the center of His story. We have the end of the story (Rev 22:20). The conversations we are having about are all known by God since the beginning.

Think this through. This one verse refutes hyper Calvinism; Matthew 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen." If Calvinism were true, the verse would/must say, "Few are chosen."

It's about time this happens! No matter who you like, you have to admit that this will be interesting and that they should definitely do an informal, in person debate. Maybe several of them. Glad Craig finally agreed to do this.

As a displaced Arminian who's got 18 months of Reformed stuff integrating itself into my 'Ologyisms', this has been an invaluable discussion I've had the privilege to listen to. Thank you Dr White & Dr Craig for showing me I'm not the only one searching for the real 'real'. To God be all the glory, whose ways are far higher than ours, whose understanding reaches far beyond our definition of understanding as we understand it; in Christ Jesus may we joyfully endure the dying of the 'old man' long enough to reach the life Jesus died to give us, by his grace alone may we love one another for his name's sake. Thank you again.

I do really dislike the pride that Calvinists assume by claiming they are the only ones with the Biblical perspective here and that the apostles and everyone in the Bible would have agreed with them. These are very high-level theological debates and I think it's very uncharitable to castigate your opponents as having a heretical view to the Bible instead of explaining why that is. Just felt like White came to read the Bible and not debate anything and that's really sad considering that he should know that WLC has read the Bible. How hard is it to believe that someone can read the Bible and have a different understanding from you? It happens all the time in Bible studies that I have been to, but I rarely go around telling people that the Bible doesn't support what they are saying. You cannot infer a theology from Scripture and then claim it is explicit to the text. Weigh the evidence, read the Bible, but make an argument on the balance of scriptural weight that each has, because he's surely got to know that there are verses with very free will language as well, right?

William Lane Craig’s face while White speaks is the same face I made during this entire debate 😂😂😂😂

Thanks to Justin for taking those subtle pauses through the debate, just to break it down for the audience. True professional

After watching two articulate well educated men pontificate the mystery of evil and why God has allowed its existence and sufferings, Romans 11:33-34 came poignantly to mind. The good news is that scripture assures us that evil is only temporary.1 John 3:8...Hallelujah to the Lamb!!!!! Cheers and blessing to everyone!!!!

I get a bit lost when Dr. White is speaking. I appreciate Dr Craig’s clear and biblical explanations. To me, God didn’t ordain truth to be confusing. I appreciate this conversation. Thank you!

WLC made the stronger logical, philosophical argument for a position that "fits with" Scripture. JW took the position that flows "directly from" Scripture. That's the key difference. WRT to the problem of evil, WLC pointed out that divine determinism logically implies that God is the author of evil. But again, that assertion is made from philosophical reasoning. Calvinism says, Scripture clearly teaches that God is not the author of evil. How to logically reconcile that with God's sovereign decree over all things, we have to work that out. Just wanted to point this out, in light of all the comments I see here. I agree that WLC's argument made more logical sense. I agree that JW didn't address the problem of evil as adequately as many would have liked. But remember, "which position makes more logical sense" cannot be the only basis by which Christians rank different theological positions.

I would have put this on my top five most heavily anticipated debates. This had to happen between Calvinism and Molinism; between Craig and White. I'm thankful for Justin.

Both of these men influenced my Christian walk greatly in the 1990’s. Good to see them together to wrestle through a very complicated issue, even if from different perspectives.

Also my heart goes out to those who have suffered great tragedy because of the sinful freewill of man. It is extremely difficult for them to begin a relationship with a loving God if they hear that God purposely ordained for tragedy to happen to them randomly by the hand of God. The truths of Scripture also line up with common sense.

Justin is quite simply the best host for these debates.

Very interesting debate. Wish James white actually tried to defend the claims against him about the idea of God causing evil. I also wish WLC used more scripture to defend his idea, which I know there is but he mostly used philosophy.

Thank you to Justin, his team, Dr. White, and Dr. Craig for taking the time to have this discussion. This was helpful.

William Lane Craig is awesome in his explanation of his position! I learned so much from his teaching! I have a much better understanding of why Calvinisim is not biblical. Mr Craigs position makes so much more sense! So glad I watched this video!!!

I remember hearing a story of how a little girl was playing randomly on a piano. But then a man who was an expert on music theory heard the notes that she played, and BASED on her free choice to play the piano randomly, the man used his expertise to play notes that complimented the otherwise random playing of the girl thus creating a coherent musical composition. God in is omniscience is a master musician and can make coherence or sense out of our choice to play music poorly or music well, but BOTH are free choices on our side. We can either strive to become MORE like the pianist in our knowledge of music theory or we can play however we like. But in the end, God works ALL things for His good, and proves that He is, in fact, a master musician that can turn even the most ugly notes into comprehensive music. This to me is a MUCH more awe inspiring story than the man picking up the girls hands and making her play well or making her play poorly and praising her for "playing well" and punishing her for "playing poorly", and THIS is the fundamental difference between Molinism and Calvinism.

I love a good discussion around this topic. I think that William Lane Craig has the stronger argument. All of my Christian friends who accepted Christ and went into reformed theology all rejected God… WLC is right, White’s world-view purports God as the author of evil. The logical conclusion of White’s word-view is that God is cruel from the outset, people don’t have a chance as God has already decided your fate. I have always liked the ‘middle knowledge of God’ theory that WLC proposes. I love this quote by NT Wright, which puts the focus on Jesus. “Jesus doesn't give an explanation for the pain and sorrow of the world. He comes where the pain is most acute and takes it upon himself. Jesus doesn't explain why there is suffering, illness, and death in the world. He brings healing and hope. He doesn't allow the problem of evil to be the subject of a seminar. He allows evil to do its worst to him. He exhausts it, drains its power, and emerges with new life.”

1:09 and 1:29 - Intro 5:57, 7:20 - James White as hospital chaplain 7:55, 8:35, 10:50 - White’s take on evil and sovereignty 12:30, 13:05, 13:42 - Craig’s presentation of the molinist view 14:29, 14:59 - Craig on the problem of evil 18:43 - White on the limitations of molinism 21:44 - Craig responds to Calvinism 23:21, 24:19 - Craig responds to the “grounding objection” 25:02 - White responds 39:55 - Craig unleashing his love for the Joseph story in Genesis 50 41:40 42:55, 43:41 - White’s response concerning Genesis 50 44:42, 45:03 - White flexes with his knowledge of the Greek 54:46, 55:10 - Craig and Ephesians 1:11 56:47 - counterfactuals and 2 Corinthians 2:8 59:07 - Essence of James White 1:00:40, 1:01:24 - White on natural and free knowledge 1:01:50, 1:02:08 - White complimenting Craig 1:03:24, 1:06:31, 1:12:03, 1:14:50 - White’s view of the difference 1:03:51, 1:04:42, 1:05:59, 1:09:00 - Craig’s view of the difference 1:10:01 - White’s take on Molina 1:10:22 - Craig’s response 1:12:34, 1:13:10, 1:13:39 - Craig’s take on Reformed theology

Isaiah 45:7 What God says of Himself is sufficient. We're the ones uncomfortable.

I am not a Calvinist and never will be but great points where made on both sides. With that being said, I don’t think we will ever understand the relationship between mankind’s free will and Gods foreknowledge. I believe we should stop trying and just have faith in God and his ability to be God. When I think of this argument I think of the argument of Gods permissive will vs Gods perfect will. I believe without a doubt that God knows the end of everything from the beginning of it and the Bible says he even knows our thoughts afar off. Just because that’s true doesn’t mean his perfect will is always done. The Bible says he wills that no one perish but we know according to scripture that many will and that’s because we have the freedom to say yes or no to God and his salvation. Just me thinking out loud.

Another important thing to note is that James has a major issue with the "delimiting" of God - or God's sovereignty or power being limited by external factors. A simple response to him is that what if it's within God's will to limit HIS OWN sovereignty. The fact that God has even permitted sin to exist is great evidence for this argument. God's choice to limit his control in order to give us true free will is not a bad thing, in fact it shows how loving He is... because He wants a true relationship with us, and true relationships require free-will on both sides of the relationship.

I found it frustrating that James White really didn’t answer the question of how God is not the author of evil within Calvinism. He sidestepped it the whole debate

The difference is when Craig says plausibility, he is coming at knowledge of Gods word with humility, and white does not, as if he knows every bit of the Bible and God, other than his secret will. I can appreciate Craig’s humility in listening and humble body language

Fantastic debate! Love them both. Great knowledge here

This conversation was Incredibly fruitful. Thank you brother for getting these debates together. It’s always a delight to see people sharing their perspectives/views without being disrespectful.

Dang I'm 30 mins in and this is the most high tier debate I've ever seen. I watch a lot of debates and my head is hurting! Great, great stuff.

I truly enjoyed this debate. Just to be honest up front, I am a Calvinist, so I have bias. But nevertheless came into it with an open mind towards Molinism and Mr. Craig's arguments. For me, what really did it in favor of James White, was the scripture he cited over and over, whereas it just seemed to me as though Craig was referencing philosophical arguments. What a time to be alive where we can watch this clashing of theological giants, recorded perfectly, anytime and anywhere. Praise God and may Christ be glorified in this video.

This definitely helped me to understand Molinism as a Molinist would put it forward, Craig did an excellent job of enunciating his position. The problem I see, and I believe that this is what White was getting at, is that with middle knowledge there is something outside of God and God's control (the truth values of all propositions) that determins which world will be most feasible for God to create. I understand the appeal of this view, but it actually makes these truth values greater than God, and causes God to be at the mercy (if you will allow me to use such dramatic language) of these truth values. In Molinism, God is not sovereign over the truth values of any given thing, and so the truth values determine what God can and cannot do if He wishes to remain the God that He declares himself to be. I see this as essentially making Yahweh have a God above Him, the God being these truth values, and that is actually idolatry. The problem of evil with Calvinism is less than the problem of God being subject to truth itself in Molinism.

I am a reformed pastor who has been for some 30 years and this was helpful to frame the issue in a general way. I would encourage looking at his issue through the lens of our spiritual capacity or ability to better arrive at a more helpful conclusion. I appreciate both men and I particularly appreciate the winsome and gracious approach of WLC. I respect James White and have even had him in our church, but the snarky approach and lack of grace at times are off-putting. WLC final point of consistency with Scripture and how there are many doctrines that are not explicit in the Word and yet have been embraced by Reformed thinkers was a solid and sound retort to James. There are times in which Reformed people are so enshrined in their own echo chamber that they lose perspective of the value and quality of other sincere views of the workings of God.

Regardless of who wins this debate/discussion, we know this is going to be a highly interesting and informative discussion, hopefully this is the first of many!!

“I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God besides me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me; that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭45‬:‭5‬-‭7‬ ‭

What a conversation! Really enjoyed this.

Thanks to Bill Craig. His willingness to speak into these matters is such a blessing to the church. James as well but I just can't be won over by Calvinism.

WOOOWWWW I'm a HUGE fan of Dr. White AND Dr. Craig. This is what happens when an unstoppable bullet meets an unpenetrable wall.

I appreciated the tone of this debate. Wm Craig is too awesome to argue with. I tend toward Molinism. I disagree with Calvinism but appreciate the biblical arguments. God bless

Ladies, buy your man “Essence of James White” for Valentines Day

This was an epic debate between two theological giants. We need more of these discussions.

Very disappointed that White never truly addressed Craig's accusation that Calvinism makes God the author of evil. His insistence that the Calvinist view is scriptural holds no weight without thoroughly treating what his own view says about the nature of God. Clearly, Craig was trying to take the conversation there (over and over again), but White seemed to consistently avoid it. I was really excited to hear this conversation, but I was disappointed when it failed to adequately address the simple issue of God as the author of evil.

Molinism: the theological equivalent of the multiverse theory. They both trying to get around the decree of God.

I have rewatched this a few times and James White said that humans are not these simple beings that what we would do is easily known because even he surprises himself. I agree we are not simple, to humans, but we are certain simple to God...🤷🏾‍♂️

I love how James just presupposes that his interpretation of scripture is the original intent of the authors and then accuses everyone else of following a later man-made interpretation. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I got excited thinking this was the actual episode. Cannot wait! I praise God that he chose to actualize a world in which this happened!

Very interesting discussion. It's great that they're kind and respectful to each other.

If all is predetermined , it seems then there must ultimately be only one will and God is playing chess with himself.

Did anyone hear James say how God is not the author of evil on Calvinism? He was asked repeatedly. Did he ever give an answer? I'm asking genuinely.

When God says in the OT " They restisted my Spirit" , it goes against determinism, cause it states that humans can resist the will of God. When Paul said that "Satan hindered me", and Scripture said that Jesus could not do "many miracles there because of unbelif" , then it clearly implies that humans can resist the will of God, and that Satan can hinder the will of God to be done.

I'm not a theologian, but I will explain this in a very simple way. This is the way it works. Man has free will and also at the same time God has the power to intervene in our lives at anytime for his will.

If every man is predestined to do the evil actions then Sin and Faith would not exist and thus man wouldn't be compelled to improve because that would be impossible as such would redemption. Would you want someone to come and love you or would you want to program something to love you?

Only WLC showed up to discuss the problem of evil. Although I'm not quite convinced of the truth of Molinism, WLC defended it well and made clear points. JW spent almost all his time on the attack and barely touched on the supposed topic of the debate. The closest he came was to say God does not author evil, but rather restrains it. This was based on passages which are clearly meant to be exceptional cases of God's intervention and not the normative way God interacts with His creatures. Yet, JW never denied the absolute determinism of God and so the question of the author of evil remains.

To paraphrase a familiar William Lane Craig quote: The man who does not realize that he’s likewise doing philosophy is the one most apt to be fooled by philosophy.

Hi all at premier unbelievable. Always love these debates on this channel. God bless.

I felt like I was looking in a mirror when they showed Dr James White's smirk at Craig's comment that God could "hope to achieve something!" 😂😂 14:57

It's strange to hear a Calvinist criticising a theology for being developed late in Christian history.

“That’s because you’re a determinist.” WLC Best part of the discussion.

I've also understood scripture to teach that We have Free Will, God can and Has acted in ways that caused something to happen to further his Desires/Will for us. While he interacts with us or the World Around US WE ARE FREE TO CHOOSE how we will act in those moments. We can do good or Evil. Example. When the Bible says he Hardend the Pharohs Heart. I understood that to mean. When God revealed himself through his Almighty Works/Power. The Pharoh BY HIS OWN Choice Decided to Fight Against God. By doing so each time HE LOST TO GOD it made him Angrier and turn further from God (by his own choice) which Hardend His Heart to God. Much in the same way a person can get more Violent and Angry each time they are defeated. So Yes, the scriptures say God Hardend the Pharohs Heart but I think people are missing the finer detail of How this was Accomplished. It is NOT God, Taking the Pharoh and Simply Willing the Pharoh to Refuse Moses Pleading. That is Solely the Choice of the Pharoh in HOW He chose to Act and Respond. Because of the Pharohs Actions and Choices, THERE WERE TERRIBLE CONSEQUENCES. Thats how God Hardend his heart. At least that is how I understood the Scriptures when I read them, meditated on them and Prayed to God for Understanding. I also understand/Believe God is outside of Space and Time. So he can look and see everything at once. An easy way to explain and understand it is like this. Everyone knows what a Video Game is. If you have ever seen a video of or played any of these games it will help. Star citizen, Elite Dangerous, Skyrim, GTA, Oblivion, World of Warcraft. Okay. Those are game worlds essentially that you play on a Console or PC. We can Interact with those game worlds OR UNIVERSES through controllers, keyboards and a mouse. We View those Game Worlds/Universes through a TV Screen or Monitor. Now imagine a Game world Like Skyrim where every single NPC was a Fully Functional Artificial AI who can think freely and make their own choices. All of those AI NPCs are living their lives, growing older, having kids, die'n... Living Life just like a normal person would. Now imagine YOU or I create a NEW Character. Now we can walk around and interact with this Wolrd/Universe using our newly created character. To everyone else in that game world your player character would appear like everyone else. They would have NO IDEA that player Character was actually being Controlled by someone who exists OUTSIDE that game World or Universe. They would have NO WAY OF KNOWING OR BEING ABLE TO EVEN TEST IT! Now Imagine you give yourself (Your Player Character some Cheat Codes) You now have the Power to heal any wound, disease or Sickness... Now You can NOT ONLY raise the Dead and bring them back to life BUT You Can Also bring yourself back to life. ALL the AI NPCs would think you are God. So, using that as an example for a comparison simply to understand the concept I am trying to Explain. God Existed Before Time and Space. Then God Created TIME and Space together (The Universe inside the Computer in my example). God Can see everything happening INSIDE the Universe (Game in my example), he can Also interact with it BOTH Directly and Indirectly BUT WE CANNOT SEE OUTSIDE OUR UNIVERSE OR INTERACT WITH GOD OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE WITHOUT GODS ASSISTANCE!😊 I don't know where I fit based on that in regards to these two guys arguments because I agree with points both have made BUT I've never studied what either Cavalenism thing OR what the Mono thing is or what either points of view are. I also find the Word Soup used confusing as I have not heard of it before. Like the truthmaker stuff. Took a bit for me to understand what they were trying to say. I don't see God making or creating a bunch of different worlds to see how people would react in certain situations. Then based on that try to find a world where his "WILL"would ultimately be done. Thats essentially what I understood from Dr. Craig. Far more plausible what Dr. White was saying BUT like my example with the Pharoh. Either way I don't know which is ultimately correct but I will continue to Pray and Ask God to clarify his words and my understanding so that I can better serve him and NOT lead anyone down the wrong path. God Bless!

Two of my favorite theologians and debaters! This was a fantastic, high level discussion. My overall takeaway is that Dr. White doesn’t actually fully understand the nuances of Molinism. He was caught off guard when Dr. Craig showed him that his example of the story of Joseph was a great example of molinism.

Whatever you believe about WLC, he is a very polite and warm participant in this exchange.

I watched this debate with my girlfriend last saturday and to our summation, WLC decisively defeat JW here. 1. WLC is the one who always stick to the topic. 2. JW mentioned things that have nothing to do with the debate like Molina was a Jesuit, Molina was not a theological giant, the prophets and apostles does not know about Molinism, etc., 3. WLC always counter JW arguments by showing the latter's inconsistencies. 4. WLC is able to reconcile his position in every Bible texts JW use to disprove Molinism. 5. JW fails to counter WLC in no. 4. 6. JW was not able to answer WLC's main argument against Calvanism i.e. Calvanism makes God the author of evil. Amazingly, WLC defeat JW in the sweetest, gracious, and loving way.

Great and respectful debate!

Psalm 78:41 (KJV) : "Yea, they turned back and tempted God and LIMITED the Holy One of Israel". I am a calvinist, but I think molonist helps me better understand the works of God and actions of man in the Scriptures

It’s amazing how Dr. Craig respectfully explains the Molinist theory in a simple way which clearly shows God is not the author of sin and evil, and yet still has ultimately control on what will happen in all situations. Meanwhile, Mr. White talks in circles and never actually explains how in his view (Calvinism), God is in charge of every action we do including evil but yet God is not responsible for that evil committed. It seems so obviously out of sync with what scripture teaches, which is to say God is just, loving, sovereign, and omniscient…and Molinism allows for all of these in a much more plausible way I think. Like Mr. White, most Calvinist generally say it is up to God to do what He will (which is of course true at face value), and then they quote the scripture of the potter and his clay; however, the issue is that God is not a God of self-contradiction. When the bible says God is good and is not evil, it means just what it says, that God can do no evil because it is opposite of his very nature (1 John 1:5 is just one example). The bible also speaks of God as a loving father, so what father would force their child to do evil and then punish them for said evil...this would be a very unloving view of God and one I fully reject. If I sin and do evil, it is of my own free-will and I only have myself to blame. Thank you God for loving and saving me in spite of my sin, and for not forcing any sinful act upon me for which I have no choice but to commit.

I love the dialogue and arguments. I did find the idea that, before Molina gave a nuanced description of the belief, it wouldn't be possible for anyone to have the belief. My mom who is not an intellectual and has never even heard of Molinism expressed the idea of Molinism to me as a child. It is only the high intellectual who needs express definitions to have real understanding.

James White is more biblical than William Lane Craig. I've watched many of WLC's videos. I love listening to his debates and other topics. He is one of the best Christian apologists out there. . But he is inconsistent in his view on the Problem of Evil. We should understand that there is an eternal decree of God. God decreed that evil would come yet He is not the author of evil. There's a primary cause and a secondary cause. "God's works of providence are, his most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing of all his creatures, and their action." The theologians speak of those forces truly operating in the world as "secondary causes". God is the first cause, but the forces of nature and free actions of personal beings whom God has created are second causes; and it is extremely important if we would be true to the Bible, that the existence of secondary causes should not be denied. Only, it is important to observe that the two causes are not on the same plane. They are not coordinated, but one is completely subordinate to another. In every event in the natural world, God has completely accomplished what he willed to accomplish. He is not limited in any way by the forces of nature or by the free actions of his creatures. They act truly, but they truly act only as he has determined they shall act. The correct way, therefore, to express the relation between secondary causes and God, the great First Cause, is to say that God makes use of second causes to accomplish what is in accordance with his eternal purpose. The second causes are not independent forces whose cooperation He needs, but they are means that He employs exactly as He will.

"You contribute nothing to your salvation but the sin that makes it necessary".

God restrains us from being as evil as we could. He never forces us to be more evil than we are.

I grew up attending both non-denominational and reformed church bodies, and I have found a great sense of value and truth offered from both sects. I think I am fairly level headed when assessing this, and I have to say that the Calvinist (JW) really showed a lot of the negative sides that are often associated with Calvinism. He quoted Calvinist doctrines more frequently and almost more authoritatively than he quoted the Bible. He carried a noticeable sense of argumentative antagonism and self-assured arrogance. Lastly, he did not answer questions - he almost exclusively attacked and asked questions. The most noteworthy point to me was when JW repeatedly refused to answer the Molinist (WLC) when we addressed the Calvinist issue of God causing evil. This was a really good discussion, but while WLC and the host were here for a discussion/debate, JW seemed to be here to argue. WLC had a few word choices pertaining to God's control which I disagreed with, but I think he won this encounter hand over fist.

“Essence” went right over my man’s head🤣😂

White sounds a lot friendlier here than when he was debating Leighton Flowers.

TBH I felt like WLC held back. He treats his brothers differently to non believers in a debate. Respect.

I've been Reformed since reading R.C. Sproul's "Chosen By God" in the early 90's. Bible passages that I skimmed over or paid little attention to before that suddenly made much more sense and my understanding of God's attributes deepened. Lane Craig is a genuine intellectual and has dedicated his life to apologetics so I give him credit for that. His theology is not biblical on a number of issues and I wonder how much time he even spends studying God's word with a heart open to learning and not applying his philosophical filters and training to it. Any idea that God has to adjust his own plans in the light of the "free" decisions of sinful men is an idea that is refuted again and again by various bible passages. Any idea that God is opposed to overriding men's decisions is flatly denied in clear text after clear text. The idea that God does in the present, or has in the past mulled over various scenarios based on his reluctance to go against the free but sinful intentions of finite and flawed humans and has had to settle for making the best of a bad situation is demeaning to His character in my opinion. God is the only absolutely free being that exists. He does whatever He wants and is a triumphant God whose ultimate purposes are not frustrated. This is the biblical view of God. Psalm 33: 10 "The LORD frustrates the plans of the nations; He thwarts the devices of the peoples. The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the purposes of His heart to all generations". The idea that God never overrules creatures free decisions is utterly unbiblical. He does it all the time so that His own good plans can be established. Proverbs 21:1 "The king’s heart is a waterway in the hand of the LORD; He directs it where He pleases". God is directing the king's heart. He is choosing which intentions and thoughts will rise to the surface and which decisions the king will make. He doesn't need to get the king's permission to do this either. That is not Molinism or consistent with Molinism. Why does God know the future with certainty? Is He merely observing it ahead of time or actively working his prior purposes and co-ordinating events in the present to bring His plans to pass? Isaiah 46: 10 I declare the end from the beginning, and ancient times from what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and all My good pleasure I will accomplish.’ 11 I summon a bird of prey from the east, a man for My purpose from a far-off land. Truly I have spoken, and truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, and I will surely do it". God is able to declare from the outset what the end result will be BECAUSE He decided from the outset that He would accomplish ALL of his purposes. He moves both birds and people from distant places (without asking them) in order to achieve what He set out to do. Both systems have God knowing in advance and allowing the fall to occur. Molinism has absolutely no explanation of why he allowed that to happen if His primary intention was to save everyone. Molinism does not give a good account of original sin. Did anyone have a choice whether of not to have been judged to have sinned in Adam? How is this preserving human freedom when we are born slaves to sin. We are not born free and Jesus said that everyone who sins is a SLAVE to sin. The molinist view of God has Him settling for the best of a bad situation. It has him refusing to override or thwart men's intentions when scripture clearly says he does it all the time. It hold to a view of creaturely freedom that is not upheld in scripture. The Reformed view has God achieving everything that He set out to do, gloriously and triumphantly, putting on view the full range of His attributes, including His wrath against sinners and sin. Craig's accusation of the Reformed view making God the author of sin is a straw man and he is using it to avoid dealing with our biblical arguments. God does not place sinful intentions within our hearts but he is sovereign over which sins he suppresses in man and which sins he allows men to act out. He is even sovereign over which temptations and tests He allows us to undergo. Jesus was led into the wilderness by the Holy Spirit to be tested and tempted by the devil. We are taught to pray "lead us not into temptation" acknowledging God's sovereignty over which temptation he permits us to undergo. If you think that Craig is able to deal with Reformed theology, just watch his attempt to "exegete" Romans 9. He leaves out most of the pertinent verses that back up the Reformed position and then starts bringing in other verses from outside. He cannot allow Paul to establish his train of thought and build his arguments because he knows it agrees fully with what we Reformed folk teach.

After watching many of WLC's debates, i conclude with certainty, that Dr White is the greatest adversary that Bill has ever faced.

i like them both but, Bill gets the win :)

I have listened to this video probably three or four times and I am struck by many things but especially this... Craig offered no less than six chances for White to simply deny that Calvinism teaches unilateral divine determinism and at no time did White ever deny it. He could have on six occasions said no Bill, God doesn’t move the creatures will to sin… but he won’t just say it. Why won’t White say something clearly that gives some hope that he doesn’t actually believe that God moves the will of creatures to do evil?

Praise God that he decreed this episode to happen!

Satan has freedom, yet limited, from the fall from Gods throne to turn man's hearts against truth.

It doesn't matter how interesting or elegant the philosophy of Molina is if there's no scriptural support for it. If Scripture alone is sufficient to explain all things (which we, as believers affirm), then we don't need "Scripture + Molinism" to understand evil.

Loved the conversation but I’m disappointed White never directly answered how he resolves God being the cause of evil. He kept gesturing at “secondary causes” but never really explained.

White NEVER answered the simple question, "given Calvinism, how is God not the author of evil?" He never has because he can't. He knows that he can't use compatibalism against Craig because Craig is an elite philosopher who understands logic on another level.

I'd love to sit down and have a meal with Dr Craig. I appreciate how he explains these complex ideas so succinctly.