This is a short clip from Dr. James White's podcast, The Dividing Line (Radio Free Geneva edition), where he takes a look at some clips of Dr. William Lane Craig attempting to refute Calvinism.
I've been following the Dividing Line on this issue. I was at the debate (Craig-Hitchens) and I noticed Dr. Craig's inconsistency in apologetics and theology, as Dr. White shows in the subsequent episodes in the DL. I am thankful for Dr. Craig's honesty in relating his theology dangerously close to Rome's. Listen to the other installments by the Dividing Line. I heard it from Dr. Craig's mouth that his theology is closely related to Rome. Dangerous!
Unfortunately, this video is only a 10-minute clip of about 2 hours worth of Dr. White criticizing Craig's arguments against Calvinism. I would recommend listening to the full pod casts, from May 21 and 26. To give one example, White clearly refutes Craig's poor exegesis of Ephesians 2. White also points out that Craig makes no attempt to refute Calvinist exegetical arguments of certain passages that he attempts to interpret in an Arminian way. He also has some interesting things to say about Molinism.
WL Craig is a formidable Christian philosopher and apologist with advanced degrees in both philosophy and theology, if I am not mistaken. While he is a molinist and has made certain charges against Calvinism that do not stick, the best initial response to his efforts in public debate and in print is exegetical. Dr. White is strong in this area. He is not strong in the area of philosophy.
Yes, Dr. Craig is a very good philosopher. But no matter how good you are, you're going to come to wrong philosophical conclusions if you start with unbiblical presuppositions. In this case, Dr. White rightly points out that Craig's overriding presupposition is human autonomy and that it forces him to do bad exegesis (and ironically, bad philosophy at the same time).
Have you ever considered where 'Dr.' white got his doctorate from? Have you ever considered where Dr. Craig got his doctorate from? Have you not seen that Craig has went into the lion's den time and again on every issue vital to Christianity? James on the other hand debates oneness pentecostals and kjv only people.
Has James White ever agreed to debate a fellow Calvanist who challenges his regeneration before faith view like Jim Ross? No!
Simply put Dr. Craig would wipe the floor with James White just like Craig finally sent Hitchens into oblivion. Praise God!
I'm not really concerned with where they got their doctorates, only the truth of the arguments that they make. I'm also concerned with the relevant experience they have. Dr. White has taught Greek for close to 20 years I think, Dr. Craig is no Greek scholar. Since this debate hangs on interpreting the Greek NT, not making complex philosophical arguments, I think it's safe to say that Dr. White would "wipe the floor" with Dr. Craig (just like he already did in this podcast series).
There's no question that Dr. Craig is an excellent debater who is doing good things for the cause of Christ. I fail to see how that's relevant. Good Christian men who have done good things can still be seriously mistaken on some issues. Do we ignore their false theology because they've done a good job debating atheists? Of course not. And I'd like to point out that it was Dr. Craig who started this by attempting to "debunk" Calvinism in his sunday school class, which was then put online for everyone to listen to.
Also, Dr. White has debated many Muslims and continues to do so, and recently debated an atheist scholar on the historicity and reliability of the Bible, so your attempt to paint him as a mere sectarian who avoids going to the "lion's den" is false. And come on, he debates people about the truth of Calvinism! Considering the vehement hatred of Calvinism in American Evangelicalism today, there's no more dangerous Lion's Den than that! :)
No problem, Ron. Better late than never, right? :)
He "wiped the floor" in the sense that he clearly refuted Dr. Craig's attempt to deny the Calvinistic interpretation of Ephesians 2. He showed very clearly that the Greek grammar does not allow for Craig's conclusion, and also pointed out that Craig did not even get the Calvinist position right to begin with. I didn't suggest that this was a formal debate between the two men, so I don't see how Craig's being around to respond is relevant.
"I heard it from Dr. Craig's mouth that his theology is closely related to Rome. Dangerous!"
DM
I heard it from many priests mouths that they believe in the trinity! Oh know what am I to do? The trinity is not closely related but exactly the same! Also that Jesus Christ died for the sins of man, and that one must be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven.... what am i to do? I believe so man doctrines that are identical to what catholics believe, does that make me incorrect? I am very glad that we do not come to truth by picking opposite arguments of what are opponents believe.
Thank God for rational, humble, intelligent people like William Lane Craig. White's God sounds like a schizophrenic (two wills?), narcissistic, inconsistent, conflicted, puppet-master. White has no grace nor objectivity, painting all who disagree as complete ignorant fools. Truth be known, if White ever had the misfortune of standing toe-to-toe with Dr. Craig in an actual debate, he'd be demolished so badly he might not ever recover.
I would not get to intensely committed to either gentleman. They are both men of God who are used by God, they obviously have strengths and weaknesses. William Lane Craig is probably the most talented apologist and philosopher I have seen in my lifetime. Dr. White seems like he knows his Bible, I am not a Calvinist but White would be a quick source for me if I wanted to get information on the issues Calvinists take to heart.
Both have flaws and weaknesses, Craig argues for Christianity much like a Justin Martyr would, primarily from a perspective were Christian presuppositions are not assumed. White speaks from a biblical perspective which is why he is so effective against Christian cults and has so much credibility in the area of Christian discernment. Both are human in that they have had moments of pettiness, which is unfortunate. Frankly, it is something that is hard to avoid, patience is a virtue in debate.
I've been following the Dividing Line on this issue. I was at the debate (Craig-Hitchens) and I noticed Dr. Craig's inconsistency in apologetics and theology, as Dr. White shows in the subsequent episodes in the DL. I am thankful for Dr. Craig's honesty in relating his theology dangerously close to Rome's. Listen to the other installments by the Dividing Line. I heard it from Dr. Craig's mouth that his theology is closely related to Rome. Dangerous!
ReplyDeleteWhat issue do you feel like White refuted Craig on in this talk?
ReplyDeleteMG,
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, this video is only a 10-minute clip of about 2 hours worth of Dr. White criticizing Craig's arguments against Calvinism. I would recommend listening to the full pod casts, from May 21 and 26. To give one example, White clearly refutes Craig's poor exegesis of Ephesians 2. White also points out that Craig makes no attempt to refute Calvinist exegetical arguments of certain passages that he attempts to interpret in an Arminian way. He also has some interesting things to say about Molinism.
WL Craig is a formidable Christian philosopher and apologist with advanced degrees in both philosophy and theology, if I am not mistaken. While he is a molinist and has made certain charges against Calvinism that do not stick, the best initial response to his efforts in public debate and in print is exegetical. Dr. White is strong in this area. He is not strong in the area of philosophy.
ReplyDeleteRoberto,
ReplyDeleteYes, Dr. Craig is a very good philosopher. But no matter how good you are, you're going to come to wrong philosophical conclusions if you start with unbiblical presuppositions. In this case, Dr. White rightly points out that Craig's overriding presupposition is human autonomy and that it forces him to do bad exegesis (and ironically, bad philosophy at the same time).
I agree. I think that Dr. White will not do justice, however, to bridge the exegetical case to the philosophical case.
ReplyDeleteHave you ever considered where 'Dr.' white got his doctorate from? Have you ever considered where Dr. Craig got his doctorate from? Have you not seen that Craig has went into the lion's den time and again on every issue vital to Christianity? James on the other hand debates oneness pentecostals and kjv only people.
ReplyDeleteHas James White ever agreed to debate a fellow Calvanist who challenges his regeneration before faith view like Jim Ross? No!
Simply put Dr. Craig would wipe the floor with James White just like Craig finally sent Hitchens into oblivion. Praise God!
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI'm not really concerned with where they got their doctorates, only the truth of the arguments that they make. I'm also concerned with the relevant experience they have. Dr. White has taught Greek for close to 20 years I think, Dr. Craig is no Greek scholar. Since this debate hangs on interpreting the Greek NT, not making complex philosophical arguments, I think it's safe to say that Dr. White would "wipe the floor" with Dr. Craig (just like he already did in this podcast series).
There's no question that Dr. Craig is an excellent debater who is doing good things for the cause of Christ. I fail to see how that's relevant. Good Christian men who have done good things can still be seriously mistaken on some issues. Do we ignore their false theology because they've done a good job debating atheists? Of course not. And I'd like to point out that it was Dr. Craig who started this by attempting to "debunk" Calvinism in his sunday school class, which was then put online for everyone to listen to.
Also, Dr. White has debated many Muslims and continues to do so, and recently debated an atheist scholar on the historicity and reliability of the Bible, so your attempt to paint him as a mere sectarian who avoids going to the "lion's den" is false. And come on, he debates people about the truth of Calvinism! Considering the vehement hatred of Calvinism in American Evangelicalism today, there's no more dangerous Lion's Den than that! :)
Forgive the response to a months old comment, but:
ReplyDelete"Dr. White would "wipe the floor" with Dr. Craig (just like he already did in this podcast series)."
Regarding your parenthetical comment; how can you wipe the floor with someone when they're not even around to respond?
No problem, Ron. Better late than never, right? :)
ReplyDeleteHe "wiped the floor" in the sense that he clearly refuted Dr. Craig's attempt to deny the Calvinistic interpretation of Ephesians 2. He showed very clearly that the Greek grammar does not allow for Craig's conclusion, and also pointed out that Craig did not even get the Calvinist position right to begin with. I didn't suggest that this was a formal debate between the two men, so I don't see how Craig's being around to respond is relevant.
Thanks for the comment!
"I heard it from Dr. Craig's mouth that his theology is closely related to Rome. Dangerous!"
ReplyDeleteDM
I heard it from many priests mouths that they believe in the trinity! Oh know what am I to do? The trinity is not closely related but exactly the same! Also that Jesus Christ died for the sins of man, and that one must be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven.... what am i to do? I believe so man doctrines that are identical to what catholics believe, does that make me incorrect? I am very glad that we do not come to truth by picking opposite arguments of what are opponents believe.
Thank God for rational, humble, intelligent people like William Lane Craig. White's God sounds like a schizophrenic (two wills?), narcissistic, inconsistent, conflicted, puppet-master. White has no grace nor objectivity, painting all who disagree as complete ignorant fools. Truth be known, if White ever had the misfortune of standing toe-to-toe with Dr. Craig in an actual debate, he'd be demolished so badly he might not ever recover.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous",
ReplyDeleteClearly you've never seen James White debate. :P
I would not get to intensely committed to either gentleman. They are both men of God who are used by God, they obviously have strengths and weaknesses. William Lane Craig is probably the most talented apologist and philosopher I have seen in my lifetime. Dr. White seems like he knows his Bible, I am not a Calvinist but White would be a quick source for me if I wanted to get information on the issues Calvinists take to heart.
ReplyDeleteBoth have flaws and weaknesses, Craig argues for Christianity much like a Justin Martyr would, primarily from a perspective were Christian presuppositions are not assumed. White speaks from a biblical perspective which is why he is so effective against Christian cults and has so much credibility in the area of Christian discernment. Both are human in that they have had moments of pettiness, which is unfortunate. Frankly, it is something that is hard to avoid, patience is a virtue in debate.