So I was wrapping things up today and Richard Porter, the young Molinist who is supposed to call into the Dividing Line next week, tweeted me and demanded that I remove this statement from my previous post: “Then, next Tuesday, we will be joined by a young apologist who thinks I do nothing for the kingdom, am like the sound of one hand clapping, and will be discussing Molinism with me anyway!” He tweeted:
I didn’t say you do nothing for the Kingdom. Remove that remark.
Remove what’s up there, or forget having me on your show.
Well, that would be a tragedy! But I wonder if I was so far off in interpreting the young apologist’s words? So, let’s let the record speak for itself. Here are his tweets, taken directly from his twitter page:
Craig toppled Paul Helm. He would eviscerate you. Calvinism is not biblical. Have a nice evening.
Well. Craig isn’t too big on debates with believers. Particularly ones who aren’t respected academics in the relevant areas.
That’s another fact. He does more for the Kingdom than you could ever dream of. Get off of his case.
Emotions? I’m fine. I’m just tired of you and the damage you do to God’s Kingdom. You’re the sound of one hand clapping.
Your critiques of Molinism are awful. Hence why scholars won’t interact. Vide Flint, Freddoso, or Keathley.
I just think you lack the philosophical training to do good systematics. That’s my honest opinion. Calvinism is not biblical.
You don’t write for academic journals and publishers. Not a knock. Just a fact. Neither does Ravi. He’s awesome.
I never said I’m a theologian. I have no published works. Still be glad to show you why your philosophical theology is bad.
So there you go. I think most folks can see that my brief summary was pretty close—he didn’t say I didn’t do anything for the Kingdom, just that in comparison with WLC, I couldn’t even dream of doing what he does! Well, that’s all the difference in the world, to be sure! So anyway, I hope brother Richard accepts this correction, and I look forward to finding out how he manages to not only explain how something in this universe can be true without God having defined it as such; how such true things can constrain and delimit the choices of God Himself; and how any of this even remotely approximates the teaching of the inspired Scriptures.