JAMES WHITE VS WILLIAM LANE CRAIG: CALVINISM VERSUS MOLINISM - THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

William Lane Craig vs James White - Calvinism vs Molinism on the Problem of Evil - YouTube

Molinism is a complex philosophical theory that attempts to explain the compatibility of divine providence and human freedom (libertarianism). Libertarians believe that free will is incompatible with the Calvinist view of divine causal determinism i.e. the view that God unilaterally determines every event that occurs in the history of the world. The terms employed in this debate may present a challenge for those not familiar with philosophical concepts. 

To briefly summarize: Molinism is the theory that in addition to knowing everything that does or will come to pass, God also has "middle knowledge" i.e. He knows what people will freely choose to do in any given circumstance. If I have understood Molinism correctly, these choices aka subjunctive conditionals or counterfactuals concern what would have been true under different circumstances. For a basic understanding of Molinism, I recommend William Lane Craig's video: What Is Molinism? | Short Videos | Reasonable Faith

Molinism was a Counter-Reformation tactic named after 16th-century Spanish Jesuit priest and Roman Catholic theologian Luis de Molina. According to William Lane Craig, Molinism provides comprehensive answers to all issues related to the problem of evil and free choice. Whilst Molinism is an enterprising attempt to debunk Calvinism, it is not based on sola scriptura, the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. (1 John 4:1). In my view, no philosophical concept can begin to explain God's unsearchable ways. (Romans 11:33; Isaiah 55:9; Job 11:7; Colossians 2:8). On another level, we know that the specific objective of the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation was to destroy the gains of the Protestant Reformation and were not a genuine attempt to discover scriptural truth.

James White's objection against Molinism (and other beliefs that favour synergism), is that free will denies God's sovereignty and places limitations on what God can do. However, this argument fails to take account of God's nature which necessitates that He cannot do certain things. i.e. God cannot lie, He cannot tempt anyone, there is no darkness in Him. God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. (James 1:13 cf. Titus 1:2; 1 John 1:5). 

James White confirmed the Reformed/Calvinist perspective as set out in Chapter 3 of the Westminster Confession of Faith i.e. that God decrees whatsoever comes to pass in time:

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.."  {1} 

The conundrum resulting from Calvinism/Reformed theology is baffling. The idea that God predestines all aspects of His creation, including moral evil, thought and will, aligns with the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity. This teaching fails to explain how people have liberty or contingency of second causes when God ordains whatsoever comes to pass?  William Lane Craig points out the inescapable conclusion resulting from causal determinism i.e. that if God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, then He is the author of evil. However, this conclusion flies in the face of God's self revelation in the scriptures i.e. God is good and cannot do evil. The natural objection to Calvinism is that people are blamed and judged for things completely outside their control. 

James White: "The decree of God is not something that results in mankind being mere puppets. Instead that decree is what makes events in time meaningful."

This statement does not solve the conundrum. If the wicked actions of humans are predetermined by God before they are created, and if God has decreed that people are predetermined to do evil and have no choice in the matter, then surely mankind are puppets. According to this theory, God blames people for doing the evil things that they had no choice in doing. I fail to see how this can be meaningful. It seems feasible that God delimits Himself  (to a degree) without compromising His sovereignty i.e. He allows people free will in this present age so that they might perhaps freely seek and find Him: 

And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. (Acts 17:26-27).

John Calvin: "God arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals who are born are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by certain destruction.”

One proof text James White gives for determinism is Genesis 50:20 Joseph's brothers evil intentions against him: As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. 

There is no indication in Genesis 50 that the evil intentions of Joseph's brothers were decreed by God. God uses their evil for good, but to take the leap that God determines their evil intentions is to go beyond what is written. (1 Corinthians 4:6). God's knowledge of what was in their hearts does not signify that He decreed what was in their hearts. This verse confirms free will, not determinism. James White teaches that God limits mans evil and He he accomplishes His purpose through that evil. However, he does not address the core question: Does God use evil for His own purposes, or does He determine evil? James White openly states that the brothers acted upon the desires of their own hearts, but he does not address why they desired evil in their hearts.

James White's second proof text is Isaiah 10: God specifically identifies Assyria as the rod of His anger and sends them against Israel. However, after they have accomplished His will, He goes on to punish them.

Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger; the staff in their hands is My wrath. I will send him against a godless nation; I will dispatch him against a people destined for My rage, to take spoils and seize plunder, and to trample them down like clay in the streets..  

So when the Lord has completed all His work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, He will say, “I will punish the king of Assyria for the fruit of his arrogant heart and the proud look in his eyes. (Isaiah 10:5-6, 12).

The king of Assyria takes the "credit" for his own wicked actions:

By the strength of my hand I have done this, and by my wisdom, for I am clever. I have removed the boundaries of nations and plundered their treasures; like a mighty one I subdued their rulers. My hand reached as into a nest to seize the wealth of the nations. Like one gathering abandoned eggs, I gathered all the earth. No wing fluttered, no beak opened or chirped. (Isaiah 10:13-14).

William Lane Craig: "How can God punish the Assyrians for something that He causes them to do? ..God, knowing that the Assyrians would freely invade at that time, uses the unrighteous Assyrians to do something that He knew they they would freely do, and then He can justly punish them because this unrighteous act was done of their own free will.."  (48:00 mark).

James White's third proof text: (55:00 mark)

And He has made known to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to bring all things in heaven and on earth together in Christ. In Him we were also chosen as God’s own, having been predestined according to the plan of Him who works out everything by the counsel of His will.. (Ephesians 1:9-11).

The emphasis of Ephesians 1:1-11 is not on individual salvation, but rather the purpose of God for the chosen i.e. believers in Christ. 

Leighton Flowers: "This passage is not about God predetermining which individuals will be in Christ. It is about God predetermining what will become of those who are in Christ through belief in His truth."  {2} 

Numerous scriptures confirm that sinful intentions do not originate with God e.g.

These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage. (Jude 1:26 cf James 4:6-7).

They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

 Why do you provoke me to anger? (Jeremiah 44:8). 

James White rejects Molinist philosophy as unscriptural, and yet at the same time he fails to admit that Calvinism is also built upon a philosophical foundation and is not derived from scripture. The source of Calvinism is unequivocally Augustine of Hippo who inflicted untold damage upon on the church by introducing gnostic elements, particularly Manichaeism. Leighton Flowers has exposed James White's hypocrisy in denying the source of Calvinism: Abusing History - YouTube  It is alarming that Calvinists take the word of two very dubious characters as their authority over and above the scriptures (1) Augustine of Hippo, the so called "Father of Roman Catholicism", and (2) John Calvin, the monster who persecuted and murdered rival theologians and abused the rights of citizens during his Geneva regime!

Benjamin Writ Farley:  

"Has Reformed theology wed itself too closely to the classical world's concepts of God's perfection, omnipotence, omniscience, and immutability in its attempts to witness to the God of Scripture? To be certain, such concepts have their place in guiding the church's reflection on the biblical God of providential activity. They enable the church to avoid the pitfalls of defining God in ways that make him subservient to other factors in the universe; they call the church's attention to glaring inconsistencies in its assertions about deity. But they need not 'control' our understanding of God's interaction with his world.

A third problem with Augustine that is not discussed often is his tendency to develop doctrine based on his experience rather than scripture. I have heard it said, "A man's philosophy is dictated by his morals." The same is true for his theology. Augustine wrote an autobiography, considered to be a classic, Confessions, and in it, he discusses his problems with sin. He spends a great deal of time dealing with an incident (as a young teenager ) in which he stole pears from a neighbor's tree, and uses this event to develop and teach the doctrine of Original Sin.

Because Augustine had a problem with promiscuity and lust, and even as a churchman and bishop, had problems with his thought-life, he concluded that no one is able to choose to do good. His problem with the settings and formed the basis for the doctrine of the other depravity of man. This experiential theology, based on his own moral failures, caused him to attack the Biblical theology of Pelagius and Celestius and Julian of Eclanum, who taught man's responsibility to choose to follow God.

A fourth problem area with Augustine is an area that, while well-known among scholars, is not widely discussed, but is absolutely critical in evaluating the truth of the doctrines that he developed and foisted on the Church. This last area deals with Augustine's method of dealing with those who disagreed with his teachings. Since Augustine's teachings became the touchstone for church doctrine, both Catholic and Protestant, it is vital that we examine the process by which Christian doctrine became settled, and was handed down to us.." {3} 

James White is a seasoned debater and is highly intelligent, gifted and articulate. I do not say this to flatter him, but to point out that he is a particularly dangerous and difficult man to challenge. Nevertheless, challenge him we must! (1 Corinthians 1:27). James White's parting shot: "A lot of the conversation on this subject is not sufficiently deep to address the real issues." I am not sure how we attain this "deep understanding" without violating the scriptures? James White is not averse to employing ad hominem attacks and he often attempts to belittle those who attempt to question his teaching. (Proverbs 16:18). Nevertheless, many believers have managed to grasp the wicked and inescapable inference of Calvinism i.e. that God is the author of evil, and have recoiled from it.   

I have noticed that many false teachers have the tendency accuse their detractors of having a lack of understanding/discernment and/or intelligence. I have been accused of this myself regarding my various objections to the charismatics. It is encouraging to find that even Paul came up against the spiritual pride of those who claimed to have superior revelation/knowledge: I am not in the least inferior to the “super-apostles,” even though I am nothing. (2 Corinthians 12:11 cf. 2 Corinthians 11:4-6). 

Calvinism is no small problem within Christendom. This onerous doctrine not only misrepresents the very nature of God, it splits churches and shipwrecks the faith of some, putting stumbling blocks in the path of vulnerable or naïve believers. (Matthew 18:6).

Say to them: ‘As surely as I live, declares the Lord GOD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked should turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’ (Ezekiel 33:11 cf. 1 Timothy 2:4).

James White has recently come to the postmillennial eschatological view. I hope to tackle this subject in another post. 

1. The Westminster Confession of Faith (wts.edu)

2. Ephesians 1: “He chose us to be in Him” or “He chose us in Him?” – SOTERIOLOGY 101

3. Revival Theology Resources

AZUSA STREET: A DIFFERENT SPIRIT

For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. (2 Corinthians 11:4).

Historians consider the Azusa Street revival to be the primary catalyst for the spread of Pentecostalism in the 20th century. By 1914, various denominations had sprung up, including the Church of God in Christ, the Assemblies of God, the United Pentecostal Church and the Pentecostal Church of God. {1} 

Charles Fox Parham (1873–1929) was a self appointed American preacher and evangelist known for his pivotal role as the founder of Pentecostalism. Parham was influenced by the radical holiness teaching of Benjamin Hardin Irwin and Frank W Sandford. 

Parham was the mentor of William J Seymour, the African-American catalyst for the Azusa Street Mission. Seymour's early life is very sketchy. He was born in 1870 to emancipated slaves in Louisiana and was raised in extreme poverty with little formal education. Seymour was part of the African American slave culture of syncretistic Catholicism that incorporated Hoodoo, a popular variation of Voodoo. His unfortunate background in the occult may explain reports that he received visions from God in his early life. After moving around quite a lot as a young man, at the age of 30, Seymour moved to Cincinnati, Ohio, where he joined the Church of God Restoration Movement aka The Evening Light Saints. This group was part of the radical Holiness movement that espoused the false doctrine of Christian perfectionism via a second work of grace known as "entire sanctification". In 1905 Seymour attended Parham's school where he adopted the belief that speaking in tongues was the sign of receiving the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Other dubious influences in Seymour's life were false teachers John G Lake and Fred Bosworth.

The Azusa Street meetings began on April the14th 1906 and continued until around 1915. From the outset Seymour's meetings were viewed with suspicion and were condemned both by the secular media and by Christian leaders due to their unorthodox character. 

There are many stories about the phenomena that occurred during the Azusa Street meetings. I will not go into all the specifics here since the subject is well documented elsewhere. In general, the meetings were characterized by excessive noise, ecstatic spiritual experiences, alleged miracles, dramatic worship services, glossolalia (speaking in tongues), and inter-racial mingling (which was illegal at that time under Jim Crow law). The meetings were very lengthy affairs. They began at mid-morning and continued until 3 or 4am the following morning. Seymour rarely preached and his practice was to pray with his head in a box during the meetings, apparently so that God would get the glory. 

"The meetings in Azusa Street were dramatic. People 'fell under the power', shook violently, jerked, and made loud noises. Fire was seen rising from the building to heaven and returning back down again. The 'cloud of the Spirit' was so thick that children would play hide and seek in the midst of the meetings. Bands of angels were seen at the mission. Tongues given were often interpreted by visitors from other nations who recognized the language. Miracles and healings were common events. One man who had lost his arm in a machinery accident received a new one instantaneously." {2} 

Assemblies of God: "To read the newspapers in 1906, one might have wondered about all the excitement in an old building on Azusa Street in the industrial part of the city. According to the Los Angeles Times, a bizarre new religious sect had started with people 'breathing strange utterances and mouthing a creed which it would seem no sane mortal could understand.' Furthermore, 'Devotees of the weird doctrine practice the most fanatical rites, preach the wildest theories, and work themselves into a state of mad excitement.'

If that didn't grab the reader's attention, the article continued by saying that, 'Colored people and a sprinkling of whites compose the congregation, and night is made hideous in the neighborhood by the howlings of the worshippers who spend hours swaying forth and back in a nerve-racking attitude of prayer and supplication.'  To top it all off, they claimed to have received the 'gift of tongues,' and what's more, 'comprehend the babel.' {3}

The Controversy

Many Pentecostals and Charismatics regard Azusa Street as a genuine move of God that restored the gifts of the Holy Spirit to the church. The gift of tongues was given particular prominence by both Parham and Seymour, although they differed on specifics. Parham was the first person to assert the central tenet of Pentecostalism, i.e. that speaking in tongues was the essential evidence that a Christian was filled with the Holy Spirit. Observers outside the mission were were concerned that the meetings attracted many spiritualist mediums, hypnotists and occultists whose contributions were disruptive. Troubled by the various phenomena and his inability to control the meetings, Seymour wrote to Parham asking for his assistance. After witnessing the pandemonium first hand, Parham was outraged and appalled. He accused the the mission of being overrun by hypnotic influences, familiar-spirit influences, spiritualistic influences, mesmeric influences, all kinds of spells, spasms, and falling in trances. Parham attempted to take over the meetings, but he was quickly rejected and a rift between the two men resulted.    

Parham: "I hurried to Los Angeles, and to my utter surprise and astonishment I found conditions even worse than I had anticipated. Brother Seymour had come to me helpless, he said he could not stem the tide that had arisen. I sat on the platform in Azusa Street Mission, and saw the manifestations of the flesh, spiritualistic controls, saw people practicing hypnotism at the altar over candidates seeking baptism; though many were receiving the real baptism of the Holy Ghost. After preaching two or three times, I was informed by two of the elders, one who was a hypnotist (I had seen him lay his hands on many who came through chattering, jabbering and sputtering, speaking in no language at all) that I was not wanted in that place." {4} 

Putting aside all the stories, the various manifestations and ecstatic experiences at Azusa Street, the real test is whether the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a subsequent distinct experience following conversion is scriptural. (1 John 4:1). 

  

Pentecostals generally teach that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is necessary based on Acts 8:5-17. I will attempt to put this teaching into context and put forward evidence that "another spirit" was at work at Azusa Street, and how this "revival" has fueled the excesses of the Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement aka the New Apostolic Reformation today. 

Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ to them. The crowds gave their undivided attention to Philip’s message and to the signs they saw him perform. With loud shrieks, unclean spirits came out of many who were possessed, and many of the paralyzed and lame were healed. So there was great joy in that city.. (Acts 8:5-8).

Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:14-17).

The biblical account that the Samaritan believers received the Holy Spirit some time subsequent to their conversion is not in dispute. Philip the Evangelist converted crowds of people in a Samarian city. (Acts 8:11-12). These converts received the word of God and had "only" been baptized in the name of Jesus. It was not until Peter and John came down from Jerusalem and prayed for them that they received the Holy Spirit. It is important to note that this account pertains to what happened in Samaria and nowhere else. Typically, Pentecostal/Charismatic teachers epitomize the folly of prescribing a blueprint for the church by utilizing a descriptive verse or passage of scripture in isolation. 

Significantly, two further passages indicate that the Holy Spirit was given to believers upon conversion. It is my contention that the gift of the Holy Spirit is the normative experience of anyone who genuinely believes the gospel of Jesus Christ and has repented of their sins as per Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:44-48:

Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38).

While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days. (Acts 10:44-48).

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-5 cf.1 Corinthians 12:4).

Historically the Samaritans were loathed intensely by Jews and vice versa, so much so that the two groups did not associate with one another whatsoever. (John 4:9). The mutual hatred between the two groups goes back to the split between the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah during Rehoboam's reign. The Samaritans were the descendants of the Israeli remnant who remained in the land following the Assyrian invasion in 721BC and their intermarriage with foreigners.

It seems likely that John and Peter were tasked by the Lord to lay hands on the Samaritan believers personally as a special act due to the previous divisions between the two groups. The laying on of hands by John and Peter provided apostolic confirmation that the Samaritan believers were fully accepted by the church in Jerusalem. This act would quell any doubts about their acceptance that may later develop, and it would ensure the unity of the believers. 

You will recognize them by their fruits!

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. (Matthew 7: 15-20).

The extremes of charismania and what is referred to as "the gift of the Holy Spirit" is the complete antithesis of the fruit of the Holy Spirit. (2 Corinthians 11:4). This dangerous doctrine divides believers into two classes, those who supposedly have received the Holy Spirit and those who supposedly have not. The manifestations described in the Azusa Street meetings are never mentioned in the New Testament as evidence of the Holy Spirit. These same frenzied manifestations, such as convulsions, jerking, animal noises etc. are common phenomena in many Pentecostal/Charismatic churches today and directly contradict the scriptures regarding orderly worship and self-control. (1 Corinthians 14:33; Galatians 5:23). These groups are known for their false prophecies, false teachings, dubious manifestations such as gold dust, angel feathers, glory clouds etc. and alleged healings that cannot be verified medically. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24).  

Charles Parham's Character and Doctrinal Deviations

Parhams theology was riddled with errors, some of which are mentioned below:

* Annihilationism - Parham denied that unbelievers will suffer eternal torment. 

* Divine healing is included in the atonement. 

Parham: "The healing of the sick is as much part of the gospel as telling them of heaven.. a gospel that heals the body as well as saves the soul." {5}

* Parham believed that God would restore xenolalic tongues (known languages). Parham: "..speaking in tongues is an inseparable part of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit distinguishing it from all previous works." {5} Parham based this on Acts 2:4 and Acts 10:46. However Paul contradicts this in 1 Corinthians 12:10, 30 cf. 1 Corinthians 14:5).

* Two separate creations. Parham taught the fringe two-seed theory i.e. Adam and Eve were of a different race than people who allegedly lived outside of the Garden of Eden.

* The imminent premillennial return of Christ. 

* In 1906 Parham faced allegations of sexual misconduct followed by his arrest in 1907 in San Antonio, Texas on a charge of "the commission of an unnatural offense" together with 22-year-old co-defendant, J.J. Jourdan. Parham repeatedly denied being a practicing homosexual and the District Attorney eventually dropped the case.

* Parham actively endorsed the Ku Klux Klan. 

* Various allegations of financial irregularities and doctrinal aberrations: 

"..allegations of financial irregularity and of doctrinal aberrations. In the aftermath of these events his large support base in Zion descended into a Salem-like frenzy of insanity, eventually killing three of their members in brutal exorcisms. Members of the group, who included John G Lake and Fred Bosworth, were forced to flee from Illinois, and scattered across America. As the focus of the movement moved from Parham to Seymour, Parham became resentful. His attacks on emerging leaders coupled with the allegations alienated him from much of the movement that he began. He became "an embarrassment" to a new movement which was trying to establish its credibility. {6}

A significant influence on Charles Parham was cult leader Frank Sandford. During a sabbatical, Parham spent much of his time at the ministry of Frank Sandford in Maine, and also at a religious campaign of Sandford's in Ontario. From Parham's writings it appears he assimilated some of Sandford's ideas into his own biblical paradigm.

Below ~ Lutherans Daniel Long and Steve Kozar ask some searching questions regarding cult leader Frank Sandford. Kozar: "If the Pentecostal Movement is this really unique movement in all of Christian history where the Holy Spirit started doing something again that He had stopped doing for almost 2000 years.. (allegedly) an end time renewal of the Christian church by the Holy Spirit. Who are the people who founded it, and why would they be frauds, crooks, con-artists, cult leaders, heretics? Why would the Holy Spirit use those people if this is the movement where people finally started really leading holy lives and being empowered by the Holy Spirit to lead holy lives.. Wouldn't it be led by people who are living out the claims that the move makes? 

* While I recommend this video, I do not concur with Lutheranism. 

LUTHERANISM BAPTISMAL REGENERATION DANIEL LONG STEVEN KOZAR AND CHRIS ROSEBROUGH - YouTube

1. Azusa Street Revival - Wikipedia

2. William Seymour — Work Out Your Faith

3. Assemblies of God (USA) Official Web Site | William J. Seymour and the Azusa Street Revival (ag.org)

4. Charles Parham on Speaking in Tongues (charlesasullivan.com)

5. voicecryinginthewilderness.pdf (cupandcross.com)

6. Charles Fox Parham - Wikipedia