Tag: William Lane Craig

Dr James White reviews the ‘Unbelievable’ Molinism debate

Yesterday, in his own inimitable way, Dr James White began (not quite heard it all yet) his review of the ‘Unbelievable’ Molinism debate between William Lane Craig & Paul Helm. Dr White, I believe, does the Church a great service through his Dividing Line broadcasts.

As far as the debate is concerned, what did it for me was that the Catholic ‘Counter-Reformation’ was looking for a way to answer Luther & Calvin. They did this through a Jesuit scholar. The Catholic Church would otherwise have had to give up its doctrine, as Dr White’ puts it, of Sola Ecclesia rather than the Biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and the Catholic church was never going to do that! It still holds to that today.

The ‘Dividing Line’ can be downloaded via iTunes or through the Webcast on the Aomin website. His review starts about 30 minutes in but it’s all worth a listen.

Enhanced by Zemanta

‘Unbelieveable’, Paul Helm, William Lane Craig & Molinism

Just finished listening to yesterdays broadcast of ‘Unbelieveable‘ hosted by Justin Brierly. This latest programme is a debate over Molinism between William Lane Craig (Molinist) and Paul Helm representing Calvinism. The debate as I understand it is an attempt at reconciling The Sovereignty of God and the Responsibility of Man. This is achieved for Craig through what is called ‘Middle Knowledge’. To be honest I don’t think I have fully grasped this concept but some of the things that William Lane Craig said towards the end of the debate convinced me that it is a false view and actually is not necessary.

Craig is a regular guest one way or an other on ‘Unbelieveable’ and I felt was the more media savvy. Not only that, I also sensed an affinity with this view by Justin (though I may be wrong), consequently Craig I thought had the majority of the time (haven’t the wherewithal to go through it with a stopwatch).

After a brief discussion of possible worlds, here’s the direct relevant word for word quote from the broadcast:

Justin: There may not be a world where everyone would choose freely?
Craig: Exactly. So I do say, I do affirm that, and I think you get great theological mileage out of it.
Justin: As far as you’re concerned, God is more concerned with the human freedom than in a world in which everyone is saved. That would be the choice, as it were, God is making.
Craig: Yes. Yes, I suppose that is right. He (God) would not exercise a sort of divine coercion in order to save people. He will respect people’s wills and say “I’m not going to make you go to heaven if you choose to reject me and my grace and my love for you. I will allow you to do so.”
Justin: OK. So, but as far as you are concerned this doesn’t, I mean, I think Paul’s concern is that by there being worlds which are not feasible for God to choose that somehow undermines God’s sovereignty because then it’s suggesting God…
Helm: Well it weakens, it weakens. The emphasis is now not on God’s choosing me because He wanted me to be His child, eternally and unconditionally and by His grace. But He’s chosen a world…

I’ll leave it at that. But the point of concern with this view of Craig’s is about respecting people’s wills. The problem is we have rebellious God-rejecting wills. No matter how many possible worlds there might be sinners will not choose God. By nature we want to be autonomous rulers of our own domain. We have and will reject God and His Kingly rule. We are ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ and without God choosing us we would not choose Him.

Another problem follows on from this. That is, the Apologetic methodology of Craig – despite him saying a lot of good things I might add. The will of man can be turned, coerced or influenced. This is deadly. Our Salvation must rest in God alone and not in the persuasive power of the apologist – whomever they may be. I’m sure people are converted under a Molinist ministry, but this is because God is gracious not because the preacher has amazing powers of persuasion. Molinism, no matter the strong view of Sovereignty held by Craig must wrongly grant too much to the sinner. God is sovereign over our wills – thank God for that wonderful truth!

To be sure, the Apostle Paul ‘knowing the terrors of the Lord persuades men’ but this is not to coerce the will but is the divine manner by which God calls the elect to Himself. There is a difference between respecting people’s wills and respecting people because they are made in the ‘Image of God’.

I’m already a convinced Calvinist and knew nothing of Molinism but from what I’ve heard believe it falls way short of the divine will.

As far as The Sovereignty of God and the Responsibility of man goes: I believe Spurgeon quipped, ‘ you don’t need to reconcile friends’. Molinisn is unnecessary and takes away from the Glory of God

When this passing world is done,
When has sunk yon glaring sun,
When we stand with Christ in glory,
Looking o’er life’s finished story,
Then, Lord, shall I fully know—
Not till then—how much I owe.

When I hear the wicked call,
On the rocks and hills to fall,
When I see them start and shrink
On the fiery deluge brink,
Then, Lord, shall I fully know—
Not till then—how much I owe.

When I stand before the throne,
Dressed in beauty not my own,
When I see Thee as Thou art,
Love Thee with unsinning heart,
Then Lord, shall I fully know—
Not till then—how much I owe.

When the praise of Heav’n I hear,
Loud as thunders to the ear,
Loud as many waters’ noise,
Sweet as harp’s melodious voice,
Then, Lord, shall I fully know—
Not till then—how much I owe.

Chosen not for good in me,
Wakened up from wrath to flee,
Hidden in the Savior’s side,
By the Spirit sanctified,
Teach me, Lord, on earth to show,
By my love, how much I owe.

Robert Murray McCheyne
1813-1843

Enhanced by Zemanta

Rally for Reason

Cover of "Faith and Reason"
Cover of Faith and Reason

Taking a look at the Atheist Rally for Reason website makes one wonder if they really know what they are doing. The reason (there’s that word) I say this is because there are so many Christian books that encourage or use reason, so many in fact, that it might be profitable to list them here. Why Atheists think they have the monopoly on reason is a mystery – apart from them seeking to occupy that ground with the hope that ‘Joe Public’ will be fooled into thinking Christians don’t think. The reality is however, Christians lament that thinking in general about anything at all goes on far less today. The Rally for Reason is a good example.

Here’s a few Book Titles (in no particular order):

The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Scepticism by Tim Keller

Reasonable Faith by William Lame Craig

Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics edited by Paul Copan & William Lane Craig

Reason to Believe: A Response to Common Objections to Christianity by R C Sproul

REASONS OF THE HEART by William Edgar

Faith and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith by Ronald H. Nash

The point is not necessarily to recommend the above list but merely to note that Christians do not have an aversion to reason. The above titles are only those that have the word reason in them. There are many many more books that employ the God-given gift of reason but do not have the word in the title. Whatever flag (these particular) atheists are rallying around can’t exclusively be around the flag pf reason. Their Rally for Reason is therefore to my mind completely unreasonable.

God Himself exhorts sinners, inviting them to think and to apply reason – not only in dealing with God but with each other:

Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.

Lev 19:17  “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him.

Dan 4:34  At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;

Dan 4:36  At the same time my reason returned to me, and for the glory of my kingdom, my majesty and splendor returned to me. My counselors and my lords sought me, and I was established in my kingdom, and still more greatness was added to me.

Act 17:2  And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

Act 18:19  They came to Ephesus, and he left them there. Now he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.

Jas 3:17  But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.

1Pe 3:15  but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

Related articles

Dawkins is Disgusted

Richard Dawkins

Maybe a little late with this, but there’s a really excellent post ‘Dawkins is Disgusted‘ at Analogical Thoughts. Thanks for the Heads Up to Jim over at The Domain for Truth.

Here’s a taster:

in The God Delusion he rejected and ridiculed the notion that there are moral absolutes. But if there are no moral absolutes, then there are no moral principles that absolutely rule out genocide. According to Dawkins’ moral outlook, then, genocide could be morally justified in some circumstances —

Check it out for Dawkins incoherence.

Related articles