On the Accusation of "Truth Making Maximalism"
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 09. 2024
- All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudi... for more of A&O ministry's content.
I’ve been learning so much from Your videos and especially debates. Thank you Dr White. To God be the glory.
“We have a truth maker His name is Jesus.” Doctor James White...Amen, Amen and Amen.
Excellent 👌👌👌👌
Well said Dr. White. I watched the debate between you and Dr. Craig. I have been a Dutch Reformed myself after leaving a Classical Arminian position. People who does not understand Reformed theology write off its deterministic assertion to make God as the author of evil and suffering, which Craig kept objecting on. It simply assumes on the innocence of man and ignore the distinctions made by Calvin’s between proximal, remote, and immediate cause. As such, the Molinists erroneously tries to reconcile two autonomous ‘wills’ (as if there are “two”), constructed middle knowledge (subjective conditions) without Scriptural basis to only be presupposed upon Eph. 1:11 to mean what they want it to mean as their basis. I am drawn to your work and I wish I have a lecturer like you. Reformed theology here in my seminary is frowned upon here that I have to constantly defend dialectically in almost every paper i write. Soli deo gloria. Joshua from Malaysia.
I know these deep philosophical debates are necessary, for defense of the Truth from the scriptures alone, and I thank the Lord for those He has given His wisdom to (Dr. White) for defense of truth of scripture alone.
Im so glad Dr. White is covering this in the depths he is. We cant take this for granted because we're going to need it.
Also, we must never forget that Craig thinks Adam was a neanderthal with a rational soul.
It appears to me that the root of the problem is that sinful man wants to retain some power and glory for himself. Even if it's just a little bit or in only specific situations. Man has a hard time fully surrendering to his his creator. Man wants to believe that he is responsible for the outcome.
What part of "I am THE TRUTH" did WLC miss?
That is a direct hit to the Omniscience and Omnipotence of God. That's a messed up philosophy.
Thank you Dr White. Appreciate that you stand for truth sir. Dr Craig sounds very smart, don't be deceived.
I guess Craig thinks "Truth Making Maximalism" is the author of evil, since TMM didn't give God a world where there was no evil.
the Baal does not exist thing was a chilling look into the mind of Bill Craig. What truth do we have if it’s not from God?
2+2=4
So God didn’t invent how quantity works?
@@trialbyicecream Correct. He couldn't have made a world where 2+2=5
Why not? He created quantity.
@@trialbyicecream God cannot do the logically impossible. You are confusing truth with thing (i.e. creation).
he still does teach in a Sunday school program called defender series
I appreciate Dr. White's desire to derive his theology from scripture and not to import anti-biblical philosophical views into scripture, but I gotta say that his suspicion towards and rather dismissive attitude towards philosophical theology leads him to make continuous errors in my estimation. The issue of truth maker maximalism is not an "empty epistemological card-trick" or a "sleight of hand", it is a crucial philosophical assumption underlying the grounding objection. Dr White seems to be thinking that for any conterfactual of creaturely freedom, i.e. "If I were rich , I would buy a bigger house", to be true , there has to be some "thing" or "object" that exists apart from God that "makes" it true, i.e. a truthmaker. This is exactly the point that Craig and other Molinists are challenging; truthmaker maximalism is false and that for the statement "if i were rich, I would buy a bigger house" to be true, there just is no truthmaker other than the fact that that's what I would freely do in that situation.
Also, the idea that for Christians, truthmaker maximalism is a "given" and that if we believe Colossians 1 this is just what we have to accept, seems like a really big stretch to put it mildly. Colossians 1 seems to simply teach that Christ created all things visible and invisible (physical and spiritual worlds), He existed before any of it and He keeps it in being. But how does that give you the idea that for any true statement, there also exists alongside it some object or thing as its truthmaker?
WLC is a ridiculous man
Your profile picture is ridiculous.
Baal "exists" because demons exist (1 Corinthians 10:20).
Regardless, William Lane Craig is still going to wear Essence of James White…almost as if he were predestined to, despite the counterfactuals.
But "Baal" isn't the important part of that analogy. It could easily be "Darth Vader doesn't exist" or any other non-existent entity. A statement can be true without a Truth maker.
Dr. White - I think it would be the most helpful for your audience and for any Molinists on the fence here is to put forward your own view of the situation. Most people I know, including Calvinists, believe and state that God is not the author of sin. I think the Molinist is trying to provide a defense of that claim by explaining how that might be logically possible. I would like to know how you logically defend that claim if there is no Middle Knowledge and it collapses into Natural Knowledge. You have said you don't think Fatalism is true. How? Please present a thorough video of your view and how this is explained (i.e. primary, secondary causes, or whatever it is you think solves the Problem of Sin).
I’m curious as to how you think Scripture addresses this?
He’s not going to answer here, but he’s done a Dividing Line episode that deals with it. At least in my view he did.
@@bpaudert - do you remember which episode that was where he addresses this? As far as how scripture handle this, I think it is a lot of why the controversy arises because it states that God is holy, without sin, and that is impossible for him to do wrong, but it also teaches that he decreed all things come to pass and that sin entered the world through Adam. Ultimately I think Scripture teaches that the problem of sin is solved by the solution of Jesus. Nevertheless, I do think that it’s important to somehow show that God is not the author of the very sins in which he is redeeming.
I believe it is this one. m.czcams.com/video/gm9oGXzp3BA/video.html
I believe that JW’s view is that there are limits to what God reveals and there are places at which God says “here and no further”. I don’t remember the Scripture he used but Job 38 and Romans 9 come to my mind. Paul leads us right up to the point where we think God is behind Esau’s rebellion and even asks, “Is there unrighteousness with God?”
The answer is “Certainly not!, and that man’s righteousness lies in God’s mercy not man’s will.
And when we ask, “why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” We are reminded that our knowledge has limits as creatures and God does as he chooses for His own sovereign purposes.
I am ok with these limits to our understanding and am content with letting some questions remain unanswered for now.
@@bpaudert - Thanks I will watch the video. I can see how someone might use parts of Romans 9 to claim that God is the Author of Sin and that there is no issue with that. It speaks about God hardening and then asks why does He still find fault if He hardens? Paul essentially says, "He is God. He is able to do that and still be righteous." But he does not answer *how*. I think the Molinist is trying to put forth a rubric that may explain how and Dr. White hasn't even put forward anything that would explain it in a way in which God is not the Author of Sin. I will watch the video you posted to see if he does answer it there. Thanks!
@@bpaudert - hey that video is over 2 hours long. Do you know about what point (timestamp) that he addresses it?
At 7:10 - As a Molinist Compatibilist, I have a slightly different view of the Decree and Middle Knowledge. I think the decree to create the world is the first Decree. Logically posterior to the first Decree to create a world, Middle Knowledge arises from God's creative imagination, and informs the rest of God's decrees after the Decree to create a world (the first decree). In this way, Middle Knowledge is always grounded in whatever God decrees logically prior in sequence. Since I see the Decree as a series of decisions God makes, with Middle Knowledge existing logically "in the middle of or in-between" each successive decision, the grounding objection does not affect my view. I do think that if one believes that the entire content of Middle Knowledge exists logically prior to the first decree to create a world, then there is a big issue as Dr. White points out. One might be able to say that this knowledge is a form of "useful fiction" but it then becomes hard to understand how it would have truth values or pertain to anything useful. Thus, I think my view makes the most sense and solves the grounding objection.
For us we don’t have to directly be involved in something to know it. We can observe and then come to knowledge of it.
But God is not like us. He is not a creature limited in a context that encapsulates Him.
“Before” creation, there was God. That’s it. There wasn’t God existing somewhere in a context greater than Him.
So if anything comes into existence that is not God, it must be created.
Hence the big emphasis on the Creator / creature distinction.
God knows everything because He is the creator of everything. There’s no body of knowledge that’s not created, and not Creator (i.e. middle knowledge).
What the Molinist ultimately ends up doing is compromising the Creator / creature distinction, somehow blending the creature with the Creator by allowing the creature to really limit God somehow before God has decreed to create the creature.
@@adriaanj1808 - Yes but we are talking about facts or hypothetical states of affairs. These are abstract objects and so it's hard to think of them as being "created". One can even be an anti-realist on them and see them as "useful fictions".
You are literally not understanding what he means by truthmaker. Wikipedia helps. It sounds like you’re an « actualist, » arguing against a « possibilist » yet you seem completely unaware of the content of your debate.
I gotta tell you, the longer I watched the debate the better WLC looked. I’d suggest a long (longer) form back and forth conversation with WLC and not a debate. I don’t want to hear either side go on for 20 minutes without the other being able to jump in.
I could see how this is possible if you aren't paying attention to the real issue.
it doesn't come from man either........................👁👁
When will you debate Jay Dyer??? Also the Orthodox Church is the only true Church
Said just like every cult claiming to be a church. Congratulations.
This is not Dr. White's channel, nor is this channel associated with Alpha and Omega Ministries. This is a fan channel. Please review the "About" page for Dividing Line Highlights.
@@Given119 The ORTHODOX Church is 2,000 years old, and is Apostolic. Now Protestants, those are a bunch of Cults
@@alt-monarchist the claim is certainly strong for your side. Fortunately, the standard for determining bad the wrong/unbiblical teaching isn't the church traditions but God's written word.
@@Given119 Church tradition comes from the Gospels. It was Church tradition that decided the Bible was Holy Scripture
Uncle Jimmy, You lost the debate. Tim Stratton ended it in his Part 3 video; you should go watch it.
Can you link it? I wanna check it out
@@trialbyicecream --- CZcams Stratton vs White
For those who won't listen, it seems there was never a debate.
There was no debate. Uncle J exposed the unbiblical approach of the molinist and the vain attempts to "solve" the problem of evil with philosophy rather than scripture. If there ever is a debate the molinist will never be able to avoid the reality that they don't believe the the Triune God determined what is and isn't reality and is the ultimate truth maker.
I don't think he lost the debate. I don't think anyone won or lost. I do think that it was revealed that Dr. White stands on scripture and Dr. Craig stands on human reasoning. So I guess in that way, Dr. White won before it started.