Isn't this unavoidable once you remove authority from the church? You can say James White should not attack William Craig because they are both christians but doesn't that create problems as well? Like the readers said, "let us focus on the MAIN doctrines". I think that is a bad idea. It creates a truncated christianity. It also begs the question of which doctrines are considered main. I think the list has been getting shorter and shorter as churches get more liberal.
So White is right to critique Craig over what is a pretty important christian teaching. The problem is there is no way to resolve the dispute. It just becomes an endless argument. People observing it come away with the idea that there is no way to find a sure answer to the important questions being discussed. That makes it harder to believe that christianity is a true revelation of God. This is why Jesus said in Matthew 18 that we should not argue endlessly but we take our disputes to the church. Both Craig and White have an understanding of church that makes this passage nonsense so there is really no way out.
I don't think it follows at all from the nature of Protestantism that such irrational attacks must be made. I wold have condemned this attack with equal fervor when I was a Protestant (and my theology was more Baptist than anything else).
I've never thought that Christians should war over Arminianism and Calvinism because it is abstract theology entirely divorced from day-to-day Christian life. It's interesting to mull over and ponder, but no cause for division at all.
But beyond that; Christians ought not lie about each other and misrepresent each others' beliefs. It's an ethical issue. White accused Craig of a watered-down, "sub-biblical" Christianity that simply isn't the case, as I proved. This goes beyond serious and honest disagreements among Christians. It's a straw man. White habitually (in addition to his abominable anti-Catholicism) caricatures non-Calvinist Protestant positions into grotesque parodies of what they really are.
I also disagree that this particular dispute requires Church authority to be resolved. I think that apologetic methodology is quite clear in the Bible, as I believe I have shown in the post (and in my related book, at greater length). Another irony: the Catholic thinks the Bible is clear and argues from it while the Baptist gives lip service to the Bible but quotes neither Scripture nor his opponent, when attacking a fellow Protestant.
And we know that White probably won't respond, as usual, so nothing will be resolved or achieved (also as usual in his case). But I felt it was very important to defend Dr. Craig from this atrocious slander.
I don't think this is an occasion to go back to the foundational errors and shortcomings of Protestantism; it is a time to defend a valiant defender of Christianity against falsehood and misrepresentation and to demonstrate the shallow , logically circular nature of White's own apologetic when it comes to "critique" of non-Calvinists.
As an apologist myself, naturally I would be relatively more concerned when a fellow apologist is unjustly attacked and pilloried.
Furthermore, this particular issue (Molinism vs. Thomism, in a Catholic framework) is allowed by the Church anyway, so Church authority wouldn't be of any use to "resolve" the controversy.
Catholics have tolerance for the different ways of approaching the free will / predestination paradox, whereas White's narrow brand of Calvinism can only demonize any outsider who doesn't hold it.
The Church has forbidden the doctrine of predestination to hell from eternity, but White seems to be unaware that Catholics and Arminians (such as John Wesley) agree that the elect are predestined by God.
Furthermore, this particular issue (Molinism vs. Thomism, in a Catholic framework) is allowed by the Church anyway, so Church authority wouldn't be of any use to "resolve" the controversy.
Calvinism is not the same as Thomism. Calvinism is heresy and Thomism is orthodox. They are similar in that St Thomas goes up to the edge and Calvin goes over it. Molinism vs. Thomism is often equated with Calvinism vs Aremenianism but it is a false equivalence.
I am not sure it has much to do with Molinism anyway. I think it is more of an anti-intellectualism. I think James White is concerned with anchoring faith in historical scholarship. It opens the door to historical critical interpetation also to evolution. Catholics, of course, accept all of that as long as it respects the tradition of the church. Protestants have much more trouble. I would guess that is where his discomfort with Dr Craig's line of thinking truly lies.
I do think that when the church allows Catholics freedom to disagree that does end the controversy. It makes the matter one in which we must exercise tolerance. It means you cannot let the dispute affect the functioning of the church. It's like when you tell you kids to stop fighting. It doesn't resolve the dispute but it does, hopefully, end it.
I understand it's not equivalent (I was gonna point that out, and sure enough, it came up), but the general issue (human free will + divine predestination) is still the dividing point.
Calvinism and Thomism stress the divine end of the equation and Arminianism and Molinism give more emphasis and consideration to the human participation with the divine will (and to Middle Knowledge, in the case of Molinism).
White's disdain for Craig is because of both his fundamentalist-type Calvinism and the competition of presuppositionalism and evidentialism in apologetics. Presup'ism is more in line with Luther and Calvin, whereas evidentialism is derived more so from St. Thomas. So in White's either/or, black and white mentality, any evidentialist has one foot in Rome and one in Pelagianism (and he falsely equates those too also because he can't conceive of any human cooperation with God's grace whatsoever without it being necessarily Pelagian.
But Craig's apologetic (much like my own), as seen in the two quotes, incorporates both elements: truths that both schools highlight. He is not as far from white as white vainly imagines him to be. It is only White's blinders that make it falsely appear so to him.
Dave - do you believe in the doctrine of original sin? Craig *denied* this in one of his debates with Shabir Ally - White plays it on the Dividing Line from 1/30/07 - I think that's mainly what's concerning him. Even in the two quotes from Craig you posted one can see that there is no mention of sin and judgment. White is merely concerned about the weak approach Craig is taking, he's not anathematizing him.
You imply White is against evidential apologetics from this one post of his, but I think all he's trying to do is show where Craig's emphasis is off, not present his complete view on evidential apologetics (I've heard him use evidential arguments before. Btw, even Van Til thought evidential arguments were valuable).
Of course I do.
What did Craig say about original sin? Can you summarize it, or do I have to listen to DL?
If you are interested in the topic, how about the arguments I made in criticism of White's claims?
There was no particular need to mention sin and judgment in the two quotes because the topic was the basis of belief in God (i.e., ontology and epistemology and metaphysics, not soteriology). So that's neither here nor there.
I've been searching around to see if Craig denies original sin anywhere. I found this:
---------------
Number 3: Original Sin. Dr. Curley gives the following argument:
1) Infants are damned because of original sin.
2) The Bible teaches original sin.
3) Therefore the God of the Bible does not exist.
[Dr. Craig] 11. I dispute the first premise. In fact, I challenge Dr. Curley to read me a single passage of Scripture that teaches that infants are damned because of original sin. The Bible teaches no such thing. On the contrary, Jesus took up the little children in his arms and blessed them, saying, "Let the little children come to me, for to such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven." [1]
His opponent noted that Craig "does not explicitly reject either the universality of sin or original sin"
and "It's worth noting that Craig does not explicitly reject the second premise, that the Christian scriptures teach the doctrine of original sin. He limits himself to denying that the Christian scriptures teach infant damnation."
http://www.sitemaker.umich.edu/
e...tml#craigrebut3
I listened to the relevant portion of Dividing Line (1-30-07). Craig claimed for sure that his particular argument he gave about God did not depend on original sin. Whether he also personally rejects it is unclear to me and not sufficiently proven (at least not for me) from these words alone.
One can distinguish between elements in particular arguments and personal acceptance of various things. In other words, if I don't use an element in some argument I am making it doesn't follow that I don't believe it.
I do think, however, that there is enough doubt and ambiguity as to Dr. Craig's meaning that it is worth pursuing further. He should be asked exactly what he believes, and if he truly denies original sin, then he would not be able to be classed as "orthodox" even in the more minimalistic Protestant "least common denominator" sense. That would be a shame, if true.
Not that it comes as any surprise that Protestants have an ongoing tendency to chip away at the edges of orthodoxy (the doctrines of hell and the nature of God are also under fire in some evangelical quarters).
I think the excerpt I offered above from WLC shows that if he did deny original sin, then he had a golden opportunity to state that he denied premise #2 (that the Bible teaches original sin). But he didn't do that. He only denied that infants are damned solely due to original sin.
I would agree if that were the only statement White ever made, it would be imbalanced. As you note there are evidential passages (I'd also add Jo 10:38 and I Co 15:6 to the list). I think part of the problem is they deal in totally different spheres. Craig deals mainly with atheists. White deals mainly with people who accept the bible as authoritative or accurate in some way, so he has a foothold to argue why his interpretation is correct.
Craig's Kalam argument is brilliant, I'll grant, but he should round out his presentation to speak more about sin. If he's not too proud, he should listen to Ray Comfort witness to atheists.
White at least read this post, but as usual he doesn't provide a substantive reply. Instead, he chose to caricature and butcher and misrepresent the overall meaning of my comments and my argument, rather than carefully consider them:
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?i...php?
itemid=1922
Some highlights:
"The entire post is a classic example of missing categories and utter epistemological confusion (let alone a glaring example of how someone can be the prisoner of their own bias when it comes to reading what I've written)"
". . . the normal Armstrongian loquaciousness and hand-waving . . ."
"Sadly, Armstrong truly has no concept of what he identifies as presuppositionalism. Anyone who has spent any time at all with Van Til or Bahnsen cannot help but shake their head at Armstrong's wild swings at a phantom far removed from the truth."
Well, folks, at least I (agree or disagree with me) dealt with Bishop White's argument and actually interacted with it. White often simply talks about people, rather than grapple with their arguments.
There are complexities here that deserve further exploration -- absolutely -- but with White's ultra-hostile attitude toward me we will never get to them, or accomplish anything constructive and edifying. It's always the same with the good bishop. He ends (with mockery and derision) any halfway-decent discussion before it even gets to first base.
He completely ignores, of course, whether he has misrepresented William Lane Craig. The best we can hope for is that his readers will follow the link and actually read what I wrote and figure out for themselves that his cynical take is absurd.
But anyone who looks to White for guidance in anti-Catholic apologetics is not likely to grasp my argument anymore than White's inability (or, I would say, far more so, unwillingness) to do so.
To give an example of how White massacres my reasoning:
===================
The apostles did not say, "Well, we are pretty certain Jesus rose. I mean, no one can be totally certain, of course, but we think that on the balance, the best data we can give you points to the greater probability that He rose than that He didn't." My point was that the apostles did not speak in such a fashion. They did not say that God might have raised Jesus from the dead, so you get to judge the facts for yourself as if you are some kind of neutral observer and "greater probabilities" will persuade you.
===================
I never argued that they did do that. I agreed with White that the apostolic proclamation was certain and not merely probabilistic:
"This does not involve any lessening of the certainty of faith at all. All Christians should have a rock-solid faith."
"Obviously, Paul firmly believed the things he was arguing about (just as Dr. Craig does and as I do). But that doesn't mean that he ignored the rhetorical tactics of persuasion according to evidences and (strictly from from the perspective of the unbeliever) probabilities and plausibilities."
White: "Christianity is not merely the "best of a number of possibilities," but it is the only possibility."
ME: "Ultimately, this is true. We all believe this. White need not lecture Dr. Craig about the truths of Christianity. That is what is so ridiculous about White's approach: as if other non-Calvinist Christians don't share this outlook."
-----------
My two lengthy citations of Craig at the end show beyond any doubt that his faith is not merely probabilistic. It is a certainty (just as mine is). GOT THAT, BISHOP WHITE????
White seems almost constitutionally unable to fully comprehend any viewpoint other than his own if it has the slightest affinity to Catholicism in any way, shape, or form.
It's a truly remarkable thing to behold: a case study of the corruption that men's faulty (denominational) philosophies or lack of solid logic and true philosophy cause in an otherwise functional, discerning mind.
In fact, I have done a very lengthy critique of Van Til and presuppositionalism (including some interaction with Bahnsen) before, in response to White's former buddy and comrade Tim Enloe (in a paper I linked to in the post above, with the word "presuppositionalism"):
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...itionalist.html
Enloe (needless to say) ignored it, as is his usual custom (as a good disciple and imitator of Bishop White would and should do). Likewise, it would be too taxing for White's brain to acknowledge the fact that I have studied and critiqued presup'ism or to admit that I am something more than an idiot and lamebrain.
If he ever did that, of course, he would have to (in consistency) answer the now ten papers I have written in critique of his arguments, that he has ignored. Too much work and strain and fuss; so it is much easier to slander your critic as a clueless imbecile.
That seems to work for White's readers. They sop up everything he says, and so they agree that I am an idiot and can be dismissed without any counter-argument.
Very convenient, isn't it? As I've said before, many times, if that is how White wants to deal with me (with epithets and arrogant dismissals), it's no skin off my back. I will continue to do what I do, which in turn has been a stated, documented contributing cause to many hundreds of conversions from Protestantism to Catholicism (including many Baptists).
That is the fruit of my work. If White wants to leave it (esp. my refutations of his stuff) unopposed and untouched by rational counter-reply, then his potential deleterious effect on what I do has been "self-neutralized."
And that is a very good thing. The less opposition truth receives, the more it will prevail among those on the fence, considering, open-minded, disenchanted with their present Christian affiliation, etc.
Conversely, if White teaches what I believe to be falsehoods, and I refute them, and he refuses to defend himself, then that is a net plus for truth and Catholicism too.
How he thinks either of these scenarios help his cause and what he is trying to accomplish, is beyond me. But I'm delighted that he keeps on doing this. Let him think I am stupid and dumb as a box of nails. It's always good to have an opponent vastly underrate one.
May he continue doing this indefinitely. My love for good discussion and desire and ideal that professed thinkers and intellectuals have the wherewithal and gumption to defend their ideas, is never more important than my concern for seeing Christian and Catholic truths promulgated and accepted by the largest number of people possible.
I have written to Dr. Craig to ask for clarification and am pursuing other contacts to clear this matter up, in case I can't get in touch with Dr. Craig. Stay tuned.
As for Christian apologists who specialize in the Resurrection, there is also Gary Habermas. See his resume:
http://www.garyhabermas.com/
habe...ermasresume.doc
Dr. Habermas (Baptist) is another Michigan connection to apologetics. He went to Tyndale College (metro Detroit), University of Detroit, and Michigan State University.
Norman Geisler (another of my favorite Protestant apologists) has connections to Tyndale, and once taught at Wayne State Univ. in Detroit (my alma mater).
Alvin Plantinga (perhaps the best and most celebrated and respected Protestant philosopher today, whose work has significant intersections with apologetics) also started out teaching at Wayne State, and taught for many years at Calvin College in western Michigan (Dutch Calvinist territory).
Michigan also has three major Protestant publishers: Zondervan, Baker Books, and Eerdmans: all headquartered in Grand Rapids.
For Catholic apologetics, there is Al Kresta, Steve Ray, Gary Michuta, and myself. And Servant Books in Ann Arbor, is a good publisher.
Also, although he wasn't an apologist per se, one of the leading Catholic catechists in recent times (and now possibly to be declared a saint one day) was the late Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., who taught at Western Michigan University for years and was in residence at the University of Detroit in later years, where I met him (he received me into the Church and wrote the Foreword to my first book).
Michigan: cars, the Great Lakes, good basketball and hockey (and now baseball) teams, and apologetics . . .
The fact of the matter, Dave, is that I'm not much of a presuppositionalist so it doesn't bother me that you critiqued presuppositionalism. I'm only presup in the sense of C.S. Lewis in the chapter "The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism" in Miracles. Beyond that, I don't wish to go, and certainly not into full acceptance of Van Til. I've always had serious reservations about Van Til, and they've only increased with time. I much prefer the classical method of Sproul. I much prefer being identified with the longest, deepest, widest, most versatile tradition of Christian apologetics. In other words, St. Anselm is more dear to me than Bahnsen, and I suspect he always will be.
Great, so your thought is changing here, too, and becoming more in line with my own, as so often. Delighted to hear it.
Maybe, then, you'll figure out one of these days that I'm not as ignorant and misguided as you continually portray me to be, since again and again you arrive at positions that I have held for years; and the way you are going you (and Michael Pahls and Paul Owen) may very well end up Catholic one day.
Maybe then I'll be allowed to comment in the rarefied, hallowed ground of RefCath.com. You never know!
I've added a third lengthy quote from Dr. Craig to the post, as of 1:30 PM EST Saturday, 4-14-07.
White has spewed falsehood about those who disagree with him (on other issues) yet again. He'll keep doing so unless we call him on it and expose his errors and misrepresentations of other Christians.
Well, you can take it how ever you like Dave.
Fact is, I've always been very "eclectic" in my apologetic method, probably owing to the fact that when I first discovered apologetics in my 20s, I read everything I could get my hands on that was even remotely connected with apologetics. I never limited myself to one school. Still, much of the best stuff I learned came from Geisler and like-minded individuals, for whom I have a great deal of respect. I will always remember fondly my early experiences reading Justin Martyr and Athenagoras and Irenaeus and Anselm in the only formal apologetics class I ever took. Great stuff, and the conceptual categories found in their works stuck with me through thick and thin, enabling me to see many things that people who never read anything except Reformed works can't see.
It is true that I went through a phase a few years ago where I felt that I had been criticizing presuppositionalism incorrectly for years (mostly on the basis of Sproul's work), so I tried to take Van Til, et.al., more seriously than I had been. That, plus being involved at the time with nearly fideistic presups like White and Svendsen, may have made it look like I was just another Reformish crackpot spouting unexamined propaganda, but it wasn't the case. In fact, I attribute my coming out from among them to my "eclectic" development, which had given me the tools needed to achieve a more stable view. For a time I made some serious tactical errors chiefly due to misplaced priorities (taking Catholic Fundamentalist evidentialism too seriously) and a lack of, shall we say, a properly-formed concept of the pre-Reformation Church. I didn't see some things that I otherwise might have had my priorities and historical knowledge been better.
Oh well. Errare humanam est.
Enloe, what's a Catholic fundamentalist? As opposed to a Protestant fundamentalist, or a Muslim fundamentalist?
Just wondering.
He thinks I'm a prime example, Inquisitor. LOL
Commenting by HaloScan
