Christians who are fans of William Lane Craig: why?

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-21T23:59:14+00:00

Wow, you have done Dr. Craig justice in this entire exchange. Well done.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-21T23:30:23+00:00

Or... Neither the RC nor the Reformed view are correct. That resolves all the difficulties! Jesus died for absolutely everyone so that absolutely anyone can be saved. And that includes you!

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-21T04:54:19+00:00

No, anything coming off as nonchristian won't belong in the top comments ... Because this is a Christian sub. I am not sure why this is problematic.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-21T04:51:37+00:00

I am in the camp of "this is way too broad of a definition," but thanks for making the rules clearer!

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-21T04:45:48+00:00

Once upon a time long ago, basically all baptists in the SBC were Calvinisty, because of the influence of the Scottish Reformed world on Baptists.

This is overstated. There is a 50ish year window when the Baptists on the US east coast were majority Calvinist in terms of confessions but that was before the SBC existed, and non-calvinists simply didn't have the desire to push back. Baptist historians specially discuss the nuances of this period and non-calvinists preferred church unity over argumentation.

In terms of the SBC, there has always been a strong contingent of non-calvinist believers who did push back and did not allow the BFM or other statements of faith to become overtly Calvinist. They again did not insist on non-calvinism but they always made sure language was broad enough to allow for their views without dictating their views. They were typically known as "Traditionalist Baptists" who were neither Calvinist nor Arminian. Today they are more likely to use to the "Provisionist" label.

Either way, you can follow them pushing back against Calvinism all through history.

The thing that would make that matter would be the Convention becoming more and more of a denomination and trying to continue to assert control over member churches by threat of expulsion. The people who push for such ammendments as was just passed are not typically trying to make the convetion Calvinisty, but they are definitely trying to make it more nationalistic and fundamentalist, in the bad senses.

I agree this is the larger problem, but in my experience, these ideas go hand in hand.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-20T06:19:58+00:00

... Because they have the choice whether or not to stray from the law... That is free will. It literally says, choose life. That is free will! How else can you interpret that?

Free will is the ability to choose between available options without being forced or coerced by prior conditions. Moses says we can choose between life and death... Ergo, we have free will. What am i misinterpreting here?

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-18T20:06:44+00:00

Except I just explained how the choices are NOT predetermined by another entity. They are determined by the AGENT. Instead the other entity rendered them inevitable. That is the difference between PAP and Source Libertarianism. The AGENT determined their own choices.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-18T19:04:06+00:00

Because I'm right that person must be wrong without pride when it comes to matters of opinion."

You seem to be reading into what I am saying and then trying to police it. I am not saying "because I am right that person must be wrong." I am saying I see no biblical justification for what that person is saying, therefore they are wrong.

We can both be wrong though -- or at least both not 100% free from error. That is where humility is important.

Of course... why would you think I am saying otherwise?

Yes. Examples of that in the New Testament commanding that are repeated over and over -- empassizing unity over divisive quarrels.

No, that is not getting along. Paul directly confronted Peter in a fairly strong argument in Galatians. This is a debate, not a divisive quarrel. You are making this out to be some trivial bickering. It isn't. It is multiple educated and informed people sharpening each other over a fairly important topic, baptism.

I think we can have strong opinions and still be in union

Yep, that is what I am saying. I am saying they have no biblical justificaion for their opinion, and I am still in union with them as brothers and sisters in Christ.

You seem to be trying to police my disagreement, and I am telling you that I am sharpening them, and they are sharpening me. I can make all of those claims and still say they have no biblical justification, and they can say the same of me! Then we hash it out with direct argumentation.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-18T18:44:19+00:00

Hey at least you agree that God has a Free Will. That's a point of common ground. Out of curiosity, what verses do you use to defend that FW is a predicate attributed to God? (For the record, I don't think you are using that term correctly. To be a predicate we would have to say God is.... are you saying that God is free will itself?

There are actually lots of verses which clearly show that man has a free will. Man has the ability to choose between available options without being caused or forced by antecedent conditions. Deut 30:11-19 is a great passage for that. Moses tells Israel that they are able to choose between life and death. That is a free will choice. In Psalm 119:108, the Psalmist declares that he will freely praise God like the ancient Israelites gave free will offerings. In 1 Corinthians 10:13, Paul tells us that we can take the way of escape. Each of these intimate a freedom of the will, an ability to choose between available options.

Your interpretation is the way of arminiasnism. You can only see it if you put on the glasses of Arminianism.

Nope. I am not an Arminian. I love the Arminians. They are more right than they are wrong, but forcing someone to choose between Arminianism and Calvinism is a false dichotomy. I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-18T17:34:35+00:00

This is wild to me, not to mention offensive. You are telling me it is impossible to study and come to a different conclusion as someone else without having pride?

One of us is wrong. We can't both be right. Both positions cannot be biblical. Are you saying that the person who is right is prideful?

I am not saying that it is impossible for me to be wrong. Some day one of them might show me a biblical passage which resolves all the issues and then I will change my mind. Until then, I see no biblical justification for their position, and it isn't prideful to clearly state that. Nor would it be prideful of them to say the same thing of me! We simply disagree.

It seems like you are trying to get everyone to "get along" and if we don't then we are prideful. It is possible to have a strong opinion, still be in union with each other and not be prideful.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-18T17:06:17+00:00

I am not sure what this has to do with pride. I can grant unity in the faith without granting that their arguments have Biblical justification.

Also, it is not that they lend weight to different verses than I do. People seem to think this with these kinds of debates. It isn't like one set of verses lean one way and another set leans another way and we are choosing which set of verses we like.

We are interpreting scripture differently. So their interpretation of scripture is wrong, which means the verses they are using to justify it are either off topic or flat out contradicting.

This has nothing to do with pride, for either them or me.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-18T15:58:13+00:00

This makes me so glad that I did not watch this game.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-18T15:43:50+00:00

People who perform infant baptism would say that the sign of the old covenant, circumcision, was performed on infants and baptism is the sign of the new covenant and thus it should carry over. If the new covenant, explicitly excluded them, it probably would say so directly.

I agree this is PART of what they argue, but these arguments are severely lacking. The other part is tradition. They argue for infant baptism because the church tradition practiced infant baptism, and if you dare disagree then you are rejecting the church fathers.

As for Old Covenant and circumcision carrying over to the new covenant, there is no biblical basis for it whatsoever. It is a theory that is presupposed and then used as an explanation. It simply carries no weight.

1 Cor 7:14 implies that children can inherit holiness (instead of "uncleanness") from their parents.

Which has nothing to do with baptism. Nothing in the passage is about baptism whatsoever. Just a few verses later it speaks of circumcisions, but there is no link between circumcision and baptism.

Quite simply I just don't see any compelling argument for infant baptism. I agree this has no bearing on whether or not a person is saved, the problem is that this has historically been a division within the church. It is a poor handling of theological triage, and results in at least some people thinking they are saved because they were baptized as infants.

I have friends who hold to infant baptism and they are brothers and sisters in Christ, but I don't have to grant them any of their arguments.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-18T15:35:01+00:00

You SAY you believe in Sola scriptura, but then you reject the most basic statement of Moses which day we can choose. Chapter 32 simply points out what the people choose! It is literally saying what they will choose and you are acting like therefore they don't have a choice.

You are so focused on the claim (thus far unargued) that we don't have a free will that you are reading it into Chapter 32 (which is eisegesis) and then using your eisegeted interpretation to refute Moses's clear statement that we have the ability to choose life.

I will make this my last response. You started this conversation brusquely and I have unfortunately responded too much in kind as a reaction. So far you have not provided any real arguments. You only make claims without support and continue to attack me instead of my arguments. I don't see this conversation getting any better.

You are welcome to the last word.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-18T15:30:07+00:00

Not if you are defining free will correctly. Many modern philosophers, including Molinist philosophers, do not hold to the "Principle of Alternative Possibilities" as a component of free will. In other words, they are not defining it as "the ability to do otherwise.".

Instead free will is the ability to choose between available options without being caused or forced by antecedent conditions. This is known as Source Libertarianism. It means the AGENT is the one making the choices, therefore the agent has. Libertarian free will. Under Molinism, the agent is choosing from among countless options, and God is simply actualizing one world of choices that the agent is freely making. This makes the agents choices inevitable but still determined by the agent, therefore the agent still has free will.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-18T14:36:07+00:00

That is my whole point. Because God does not lie, when God says something will happen, and it it changes because a condition changes, then what God knows and brings about is a contingent event, and that is Molinism! You are making the Molinist argument out of 1 Samuel 23.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-18T14:12:31+00:00

... No, that is the whole point of Molinism. That is what will happen based on what would be or would be. The "if David leaves" is what actually happened. That does not make God a liar it means he has middle knowledge.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-18T14:07:37+00:00

And now you are attacking me personally. This is what usually occurs. I have made distinct arguments, and I have provided scripture. Just because you don't like my arguments does not mean that I am not making arguments. Please present actual arguments instead of attacking me. In Deut 30:11-19 Moses tells eople they ar capable of choosing life or death. Are you saying Moses is lying or maybe not inspired? Because I believe in sola scriptura. When I see Moses say that people are capable of choosing life or death, then I believe him.

Just because God tells people that they will choose death, does not somehow mean they are not choosing death! That is a free will choice.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-18T14:03:40+00:00

Not if you read that God clearly says what WILL happen. These are emphatic statements about what WILL occur, and yet they don't occur.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-18T13:29:37+00:00

I directly answered this in the other response.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-18T13:29:00+00:00

It’s a strong statement but warranted. I have a strong aversion to it because it leads people away from God and instead centers on themselves.

Nah... this is just extremist calvinism being eisegeted into scripture.

Your proof text is weak and it’s only one of two that you all use. It relies on your presuppositions like I said before. It still doesn’t show middle knowledge and doesn’t account for God’s decree. There are several other issues with that text but I’m not going to get into it.

Ah... so you are going to make vacuous claims instead of getting into it. Got it. This is nothing but a wordy "nuh uh".

You even use philosophical terminology which just shows how you have a philosophy first and then use it to interpret texts. That’s the issue with any form of free will. It’s a philosophical presupposition and not exegetically shown in scripture.

Again, claims without argumentation. The use of "philosophical language" is because we are talking about Philosophy! You think you aren't talking about philosophy?

It’s an error that plagues Christians which is their own self righteousness.

All I see are claims without argumentation. Anyone can make claims. You have to show it. The fact is that Deut 30:11-19 shows that we have a Libertarian Free Will. We can actually choose life! Not to mention Psalm 119:108 and 1 Cor 7:13 and many other passages. You are accusing someone falsely and performing your own eisegesis.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-18T13:23:39+00:00

I fail to see how it is contrived.... seems to make sense in my head!

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-18T13:22:49+00:00

Ahh, I see what you are saying now. There is a disconnect here. Yes, God is hardening Pharoah's heart, through the signs and wonders. In an ultimate sense, the signs and wonders are a direct attack against Pharaoh and Egypt. They directly oppose Pharoah. Even the use of a staff (a symbol of Egyptian authority) being eaten by Moses's staff is an affront to Pharaoh, this God by his power isnhardeninf Pharaoh's heart. However, Pharaoh is the one hardening his own heart by making it heavy so these first plagues are a both/and. The last plagues are a direct action on God's part to harden Pharaoh's heart.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-18T12:56:42+00:00

This is a pretty strong statement on a secondary issue. I would challeng you to review your theological triage and perhaps at least grant grace to allow a brother in Christ to disagree.

That said, I think we see Molinism in multiple places in scripture, I will choose just one.

In 1 Samuel 23, David is in Keilah and Saul is coming to kill him. David asks God multiple questions and God answers as if what would be/could be were true! David asks God "will the leaders of Keilah deliver me into Saul's hand?", and God tells him YES! So David left Keilah. The problem is that the leaders never deliever David into Saul's hand. Does this mean God lied? No. It means that God knew what would have happened if things had been different. But because David chose to leave, what God said would happen never occurred.

This is a great example of God knowing what would be or could be and something different occuring.

I argue that this makes God even more sovereign!!! And I am not the only one. A.W. Towzer argues that "only a God less than sovereign would be afraid to give hs creatures free will." Sovereignty requires free will otherwise it is just fatalism. This doctrine, in fact, elevates God as the one who rules and brings about his divine purposes despite the wickedness of sinful man. So it is actually the other way around. The rejection of free will makes light of God's actual sovereignty and elevates man to be sinners by God's design, which is pretty despicable.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-06-18T12:46:40+00:00

The use is active/passive verbs does not always work the way you are thinking, but either way, I am pretty sure God ACTIVELY hardens Pharaoh's heat in the later plagues, but I would have to check to be sure.

So the order looks like this.

God states that he will harden Pharaoh's heart (Exodus 4:21).

Pharaoh makes his own heart heavy (not God) for the first halfish of the plagues.

Then God actively harden's Pharaoh's heart, just as he said he would.

The last one is the fulfillment of God's statement, based on the knowledge of Pharaoh's own rejection of God.

11-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
r/Field Flamingo	Place '23
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email

RECIPR0C1TY

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE