# William Lane Craig and "False Religion"



## Marrow Man

I've been out of pocket most of the week and unable to access email for most of the week, but in checking Bloglines this morning I found this interesting post at James White's blogsite concerning William Lane Craig. Forgive me if this has already been addressed/posted.

In debating Christopher Hitchens, Craig was asked if there are religions that do harm, and he answered "Islam." Later, Hitchens asked if his opponent could identify a Christian denomination with harmful teachings (Craig had already agreed with Hitchens that teaching falsehood was morally wrong). Craig replied, "Ummm...well, I'm not a Calvinist. I think certain tenets of Reformed theology are incorrect."

While this isn't earth-shattering, and while it is an "off the cuff" comment in a debate, White points out that Craig completely ignored the most obvious answer: the false gospel of Rome. Of course, Craig also embraces the now-defunct RC teaching of Molinism and believes in a soteriology remarkably similar to that of Rome, so this might be the underlying reason.


----------



## CharlieJ

Or, maybe he doesn't think of Rome as a Christian denomination. At least, I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

It is quite clear from some very lengthy statements by Craig, which Dr. White has been dealing with, that Craig actually finds more to agree with from the Council of Trent than he does with the Reformation.

I really don't get too bent out of shape when Arminians consider Calvinism to be a dangerous doctrine because I believe the same of Arminianism.

I called into James' program yesterday and made the point that Craig's theology is not materially different than Roman Catholicism. There is certainly no "dividing line" between the nature of man.

Further, Craig is a Molinist and his view of faith turns it into a cooperation with grace instead of a resting on Christ's righteousness.


----------



## tdowns

*As stated...*



CharlieJ said:


> Or, maybe he doesn't think of Rome as a Christian denomination. At least, I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt.



Molinism is within the realm of a Roman view of salvation and an accepted (although minority) view in the Roman Catholic Church. So, I doubt he thinks of Rome as non-christian.

I really enjoy listening to Craig debate, but he has bought into the cult of the almighty free will theology, everything he does, his entire logic, is based around that sacred truth.

I have a friend who just loves Craig, and goes to most the local debates, lectures, and I know the James White guys, and the William Craig guys (meaning people who follow each of their teachings and debates regularly) would love these two to debate.

Craig says he won't debate Christians on the topic--so I've heard.

I'm glad James White is tackling it.


----------



## tdowns

*Good stuff....*

I'm finally getting to listen to the James White interactions. I just listened to Craig debate another Atheist last week via podcast.

It's awesome, that White is taking the time to point the "sub-biblical" theology of Craig. Great stuff, this last one was great...I'm going backwards in order...but very good.


----------



## Confessor

Craig also believes that those who do not hear the Gospel can be saved. He bases this on Romans 2:7. He said this in a debate on the morality of hell, in which he got owned. But that typically happens when you believe that God loves people who are consigned to hell.

And yes, Craig, being a free-willist, still retains a distinctively Roman view of man. Considering his free-will theology and also his outright legalism as applied to those who never hear the Gospel, it is no accident that he did not mention that Catholicism is false.

Lastly, for a bit of hilarity...


----------



## AThornquist

Semper Fidelis said:


> It is quite clear from some very lengthy statements by Craig, which Dr. White has been dealing with, that Craig actually finds more to agree with from the Council of Trent than he does with the Reformation.
> 
> I called into James' program yesterday and made the point that Craig's theology is not materially different than Roman Catholicism. There is certainly no "dividing line" between the nature of man.




Indeed. "The difference between me and a Catholic is about the same as me and a Presbyterian"...

...And that was your call? Right after James said he wanted to say on topic?  (Just kidding. I liked the discussion.)


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Marrow Man said:


> While this isn't earth-shattering, and while it is an "off the cuff" comment in a debate, White points out that Craig completely ignored the most obvious answer: the false gospel of Rome. Of course, Craig also embraces the now-defunct RC teaching of Molinism and believes in a soteriology remarkably similar to that of Rome, so this might be the underlying reason.



Also important to remember is that Craig is an Analytic philosopher of religion, and theists working in this branch are typically friendly with one another. Theistic personalists (usually Arminians, a la Craig) and classical theists (mostly Roman Catholics) here, although opposed on many things, are allied against armies of atheists, agnostics, fideists, Wittgensteinians, etc, when it comes to God's existence and certain divine attributes, the problem of evil, and so on. This tends to breed a 'theistic comrade' mentality which is simply lacking between more _practically_ apologetical folks like James White and, say, Karl Keating.

Theistic philosophers of religion are not directly defending the faith; what they are defending is philosophical _theism_ (the groundwork of faith) as a rational, coherent belief system. When it comes to philosophical theism, Christians, Roman Catholics, Jews, and Muslims have a genuine relationship.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

AThornquist said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite clear from some very lengthy statements by Craig, which Dr. White has been dealing with, that Craig actually finds more to agree with from the Council of Trent than he does with the Reformation.
> 
> I called into James' program yesterday and made the point that Craig's theology is not materially different than Roman Catholicism. There is certainly no "dividing line" between the nature of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. "The difference between me and a Catholic is about the same as me and a Presbyterian"...
> 
> ...And that was your call? Right after James said he wanted to say on topic?  (Just kidding. I liked the discussion.)
Click to expand...


That was me. I told Rich what I wanted to talk to James about and I called him not knowing that he was trying to get through his material. Anyway....


----------



## Pergamum

Is William Lane Craig a PBer?


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Pergamum said:


> Is William Lane Craig a PBer?



I should think not.


----------



## Pergamum

Reformed Thomist said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is William Lane Craig a PBer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should think not.
Click to expand...


oke, wrong Lane.


----------



## Confessor

Were you thinking of greenbaggins? Lane Keister? That's the only other Lane I know of.


----------



## Pergamum

Yep, quilty as charged.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

greenbaggins and WLC are on two different planets.


----------



## Peairtach

What is Molinism?


----------



## Confessor

Richard Tallach said:


> What is Molinism?



Basically, man has free will, and God places every soul in a very specific situation in the world so that the maximum number of people are saved. God knows what situations will trigger people to repent (with their libertarian free will), and God places as many people as He can into those situations.


----------



## Marrow Man

Here is an article that might also help.

The quote at the end of the entry appears to be accurate:



> Biblically speaking, Molinists are more in line with the Arminian view. God chooses who will be saved because He knows who would choose Him. However, Molinists are more philosophically sophisticated than the typical Arminian. For example, William Lane Craig avoids the criticism that God’s decisions are dependent on man’s decisions by holding that God’s middle knowledge is not derived from His knowledge of the world. Rather, God’s middle knowledge is based on His existing natural knowledge. In this way he hopes to uphold God’s perfect omniscience. So, today’s evangelical Molinists are basically philosophically sophisticated Arminians.


Question: how would Alvin Plantinga, coming out of a Dutch Reformed tradition, fit into this?


----------



## Confessor

Plantinga's a Molinist for sure. He believes the "free-will defense" is adequate against the problem of evil.


----------



## Marrow Man

Yes, I knew he was a Molinist (or at least Molinism-friendly). However, how does he reconcile this with his DR upbringing?

I have seen it argued that his approach of Reformed Epistemology isn't really "Reformed" in that it does not fully take into account the noetic effects of sin, for instance.


----------



## Confessor

Marrow Man said:


> Yes, I knew he was a Molinist (or at least Molinism-friendly). However, how does he reconcile this with his DR upbringing?



I'm pretty sure he just flat-out denies it. This isn't the first time he's let unbiblical philosophy overrule Biblical theology, though. He thinks the Ten Commandments can sometimes be violated due to a situationist ethic, e.g. stealing food to help one's family. (Not surprisingly this relativistic belief arises from a denial of the Reformed view of God's Providence.)



Marrow Man said:


> I have seen it argued that his approach of Reformed Epistemology isn't really "Reformed" in that it does not fully take into account the noetic effects of sin, for instance.



Yeah, he basically posits that unbelievers innocently receive beliefs that aren't Christian. No willful distortion or suppression.


----------



## cih1355

Confessor said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is Molinism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, man has free will, and God places every soul in a very specific situation in the world so that the maximum number of people are saved. God knows what situations will trigger people to repent (with their libertarian free will), and God places as many people as He can into those situations.
Click to expand...


Unbelievers sometimes ask, "How can God create people whom He knew would end up spending an eternity in hell?" Molinists like William Lane Craig answer this question by saying, "Out of all the possible worlds that God could have created, some people would never want to come to Christ." I find this hard to believe. God could have ordained to save everyone.


----------



## Confessor

cih1355 said:


> Unbelievers sometimes ask, "How can God create people whom He knew would end up spending an eternity in hell?" Molinists like William Lane Craig answer this question by saying, "Out of all the possible worlds that God could have created, some people would never want to come to Christ." I find this hard to believe. God could have ordained to save everyone.



I think WLC defends against this by saying that while it is logically possible for God to make a world in which everyone chooses Him (with their free will), it is not _feasible_ for that to happen. He never really explains why it's not feasible, though; he just assumes it.

He gets particularly thrashed in a debate on how a God who loves everyone can send some to hell. Look especially at Dr. Bradley's questions to Dr. Craig.


----------



## ReformedChapin

Confessor said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I knew he was a Molinist (or at least Molinism-friendly). However, how does he reconcile this with his DR upbringing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure he just flat-out denies it. This isn't the first time he's let unbiblical philosophy overrule Biblical theology, though. He thinks the Ten Commandments can sometimes be violated due to a situationist ethic, e.g. stealing food to help one's family. (Not surprisingly this relativistic belief arises from a denial of the Reformed view of God's Providence.)
> 
> 
> 
> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen it argued that his approach of Reformed Epistemology isn't really "Reformed" in that it does not fully take into account the noetic effects of sin, for instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, he basically posits that unbelievers innocently receive beliefs that aren't Christian. No willful distortion or suppression.
Click to expand...


What exactly is Reformed Epistemology which Platinga endorses? Before I used to think that Plantinga was reformed until I found he was a molanist, Dr Ronald Nash in one of his old podcast said that he was.


----------



## Confessor

ReformedChapin said:


> What exactly is Reformed Epistemology which Platinga endorses? Before I used to think that Plantinga was reformed until I found he was a molanist, Dr Ronald Nash in one of his old podcast said that he was.



First off, it doesn't argue at all for Scriptural authority, or even whether God exists. What it tries to establish is that God-belief can be rational. Plantinga would argue that we can know God without having specific evidences for Him; e.g. just as I can immediately believe that a computer is in front of me (and I am rationally permitted to believe that unless proven otherwise), so also I can immediately believe that God loves me, and I am rationally permitted to believe that unless proven otherwise.

In other words, the main objective of Reformed Epistemology is to try to make it so that God-belief can be a starting point. According to Plantinga, God's existence can still be disproved, and it can still be supplemented with theistic arguments. However, with no other evidences considered, Reformed Epistemology tries to demonstrate that some people can _start_ with God-belief.


----------



## Marrow Man

Ben, those are very insightful comments into Reformed Epistemology. I think it has its merits (as far as the rationality of belief in God), but are correct, In my humble opinion, to point out those problems with the system.

Julio, I posted a paper I wrote on Reformed Epistemology on this thread a while back. I'm not sure it will help, but if you are inclined, give it a read.


----------



## ReformedChapin

Marrow Man said:


> Ben, those are very insightful comments into Reformed Epistemology. I think it has its merits (as far as the rationality of belief in God), but are correct, In my humble opinion, to point out those problems with the system.
> 
> Julio, I posted a paper I wrote on Reformed Epistemology on this thread a while back. I'm not sure it will help, but if you are inclined, give it a read.



Thanks Tim, I'll take a look at it.


----------



## tdowns

*Thanks...*

I want to read those links.

I ask my friend, is it feasible, that given their "middle knowledge", in ANY AND EVERY WORLD ALL MEN WOULD REJECT Christ? The answer is yes, and we're living in one, and despite that 100% rejection, Christ Saves HIS. THANK GOD!

In White's critiques, he also talks about, what's the point of proving theism? Theists are just as lost as the Atheists, the point should always be the Gospel.


----------



## Confessor

By the way, the #1 critique of Molinism (in my opinion at least) is that it still keeps man's choice _logically precedent_ to God's choice, thus conflicting with such Scriptures as John 10:26 and essentially making a nonsense "postdestination" out of Ephesians 1.

One Molinist tried to defend himself from this by positing logical simultaneity, i.e. that neither man's choice nor God's choice logically precedes the other, but that is plain foolishness. What that means is that man's choice and God's choice are both causally related, but neither is the effect.  Unfortunately for Molinists, that is kind of impossible.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Confessor said:


> By the way, the #1 critique of Molinism (in my opinion at least) is that it still keeps man's choice _logically precedent_ to God's choice, thus conflicting with such Scriptures as John 10:26 and essentially making a nonsense "postdestination" out of Ephesians 1.
> 
> One Molinist tried to defend himself from this by positing logical simultaneity, i.e. that neither man's choice nor God's choice logically precedes the other, but that is plain foolishness. What that means is that man's choice and God's choice are both causally related, but neither is the effect.  Unfortunately for Molinists, that is kind of impossible.



I think another major critique of the system of thought is how fatalistic it ends up being - as any system that attempts to preserve libertine free will and exhaustive foreknowledge must. I think Frame provides a devastating critique of this notion in The Doctrine of God.

Essentially, God foreknows how all free will decisions will occur and interact and then creates the Universe that will unfold according to those principles. The Universe then unfolds according to this foreknown plan but God is not really in control of the libertine decisions of men but they simply fall out according to the way He foreknew they would. Each decision is unrelated to any particular plan except that the very act of Creation sets acts in motion that unfold according to what essentially amounts to fate.

This is essentially why some Arminian theologians naturally gravitate toward Open Theism because the "ordination" of events is pure fatalism.


----------

