Scriptur
06-08-2009, 10:48 PM
In June, 2009, notice in the Doctrine of Salvation (Part 3) pod cast that William Lane Craig says the small minded view of Arminianism, though there are different kinds he says (I believe there is only one kind produced by Jacob Arminius which is in complete agreement with Scripture), is to believe that God foreknows our free-choice for each of our individual salvations. Whereas Craig, speaking of himself, prefers to take the bigger headed view in which God predestinates the entire body of Christ or the Church and we as individuals choose to come into that body. And he says predestinating the individual by foreknowing his free-choice is redundant, not so for the body of Christ!?
The obvious question one might have with this pompous attitude, is how are these really any different? for the individual still must choose to believe in Christ. And God still predestinates all things, that is to say, puts His stamp of approval on it and accordingly how He will respond in any given situation. Is it really pointless to say God predestinates by foreknowing our free-choice? Not if by this God means He responds accordingly. Even so, He still predestinates the body of Christ also, so to the group it would make predestination no less a redundancy either.
It gets worse. Then in Doctrine of Salvation (Part 4), Craig says this Arminianism is actually faulty, and the correct view is Molinism, because Molinism deals with the individual whereas Arminianism, according to Craig, does not.
Do you see how Craig operates? He bears false witness against Jacob Arminius, claims he, Craig speaking of himself, is taking the high road by saying the correct view is to the collective group God first ascribed by predestination, then Craig does a 180 and says the problem with Arminianism is this very problem he previously said was the more mature view. But that the individual needs to be taken into account for his choice and that's why Molinism is better. Oh brother! When at first you practice to deceive...
To cut through the doubletalk of William Lane Craig, realize he is being dishonest with himself and others, or he may not even realize in his headiness he is making this mistake. Either way, the Bible says, be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8), so Craig is sinning, though it is not the kind of sin people are more acquainted with.
Let us pray for William to repent. The truth of this is God foresees not just the body but also the individual so OSAS Arminian is completely compatible with Molinism, and William Lane Craig is just bearing false witness. Foreseeing the body and the individual are not mutually exclusive. Craig got caught in doubletalk through his own petty self and self-exaltation.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=podcasting_main#defenders
p.s. I am banned from his forums because I pointed this out and other previous errors. How is that being humble on his part?
The obvious question one might have with this pompous attitude, is how are these really any different? for the individual still must choose to believe in Christ. And God still predestinates all things, that is to say, puts His stamp of approval on it and accordingly how He will respond in any given situation. Is it really pointless to say God predestinates by foreknowing our free-choice? Not if by this God means He responds accordingly. Even so, He still predestinates the body of Christ also, so to the group it would make predestination no less a redundancy either.
It gets worse. Then in Doctrine of Salvation (Part 4), Craig says this Arminianism is actually faulty, and the correct view is Molinism, because Molinism deals with the individual whereas Arminianism, according to Craig, does not.
Do you see how Craig operates? He bears false witness against Jacob Arminius, claims he, Craig speaking of himself, is taking the high road by saying the correct view is to the collective group God first ascribed by predestination, then Craig does a 180 and says the problem with Arminianism is this very problem he previously said was the more mature view. But that the individual needs to be taken into account for his choice and that's why Molinism is better. Oh brother! When at first you practice to deceive...
To cut through the doubletalk of William Lane Craig, realize he is being dishonest with himself and others, or he may not even realize in his headiness he is making this mistake. Either way, the Bible says, be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8), so Craig is sinning, though it is not the kind of sin people are more acquainted with.
Let us pray for William to repent. The truth of this is God foresees not just the body but also the individual so OSAS Arminian is completely compatible with Molinism, and William Lane Craig is just bearing false witness. Foreseeing the body and the individual are not mutually exclusive. Craig got caught in doubletalk through his own petty self and self-exaltation.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=podcasting_main#defenders
p.s. I am banned from his forums because I pointed this out and other previous errors. How is that being humble on his part?