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.
