Reasonable Faith

Kevin Harris: Bill, we have questions from all over the world that have come into reasonablefaith.org. This one from Chet in the US. He says, "Dr. Craig, given that when Christ died on the cross and paid the penalty for all the sins of mankind ever, all past, all present, and all future of every human, believer and non-believer, past, present, and future, is there any efficacious benefit from this infinite wealth yet to be realized to non-believers while still not believing? Jesus' payment for even non-believer sins seems like a priceless gift just waiting on the porch outside the front door of every non-believer.

It's hard to imagine the infinite amount of wealth readily available to every non-believer that they leave on the table. Does that wealth actually exist in time and space, or is it hidden, uh, unavailable, unattainable until the gift is actually accepted?" That's from Chet.

Dr. William Lane Craig: Well, I would say, Chet, that in view of Christ's deity, the value of his sacrifice is infinite, and therefore there is, uh, efficacious benefit from his death that would apply to a potentially infinite number of non-believers, uh, if the world were to go on forever. But I don't think that that means that this wealth actually exists in time and space, as you suggest. Rather, I think that it is potential that Christ's death has the potential to wipe away every person's sin, and this will be actualized or realized historically over time as more and more people come to appropriate that benefit.

Kevin Harris: Question from the UK. "Dr. Craig, the Kalam cosmological argument, like many arguments about the present existence of God, has a fatal fallacy. The fallacy is found in the third premise that because God has made the universe, in which case he must still exist. It seems that you don't really need God to exist. You can assert that he must because you decided it. Your decision that he must be so great, he must therefore still be here, dismisses his own agency to make the universe and then decide to leave us to it. Um, I have no expectation of you answering this question because your ministry relies on a universe where God still exists.

If he did not, there would be no one to worship. Your interest are too vested in in conflicting to ever move to a position where God has created and then moved on. So, absent any logical reason to say so, you are obliged to assert he is still here." Chris in the UK.

Dr. William Lane Craig: Now, I actually have already addressed that question in my original book, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, whether God, uh, remains aloof and distant from the world that he's made or whether he's revealed himself more fully in it that we can know him more fully. And I've addressed Chris's question in the Questions of the Week, uh, as well. And what Chris doesn't realize is that many of the arguments for God's existence lead to the existence of a metaphysically necessary being. That is to say, a being whose non-existence is impossible, and therefore God cannot ceased to exist. Uh, he must exist eternally, uh, and permanently.

And so there's no possibility that the God demonstrated by these arguments has ceased to exist. Moreover, um, my work upon the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event suggests that God is not simply moved on and and remained aloof and distant from our world. Rather, I think that he has revealed himself dramatically in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, uh, who claimed to be the revelation of God, and he has publicly ratified those personal claims by raising him from the dead. And I think that we've got good evidence in support of that hypothesis. So, I think that the the, uh, concern that Chris has that God is either ceased to exist or or has simply moved on, uh, need not deter us.

Kevin Harris: Yeah. And God simply moving on, would that be a form of deism, Bill? God set the universe up and then he went on permanently vacation.

Dr. William Lane Craig: Really? That is what it is, Kevin. You're right. That would be deism. Uh, God created the world originally and then just didn't bother with it. And the uh, person of Jesus of Nazareth, I think, who he was, what he claimed his resurrection from the dead is the central argument against deism, uh, both historically and I think, uh, uh, apologetically.

Guest (Male): Yeah. Next question. Dear Dr. Craig, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your Systematic Philosophical Theology series so far. And Volume 2B covering the Trinity and apologetic arguments for the existence of God has been very enriching to my own walk with God. I appreciate that your Volume 4 will deal with the incarnation in more depth, but I would like to ask about the use of soul and spirit. I believe you have stated that Jesus Christ is the soul of the Logos, the second person of the Trinity, united to a human body. Would it be more accurate to suggest that Jesus Christ is the spirit of the Logos united to a human body?

My reasoning is that Scripture says that that God is spirit, John 4:24. And God is a concrete substance could be described as a spirit who is a maximally great being.

Dr. William Lane Craig: Yes. Well, I think Chris is right that Scripture says God is spirit, and so the Logos, the second person of the Trinity, uh, is a spiritual being. But we should not say that Jesus Christ is the spirit of the Logos. Rather, Jesus Christ is the Logos, and the Logos is a spiritual substance. Similarly, it's not accurate, Chris, to say that according to what I believe that Jesus Christ is the soul of the Logos. No, what I say is that the Logos is the soul of Jesus Christ. Uh, the Logos assumed flesh and became a man, became Jesus of of Nazareth.

So, I I think that, uh, saying that Jesus Christ is the spirit of the Logos is just going to be misleading to people and could lead to confusion between the members of the Trinity.

Kevin Harris: This next question from Ireland. Dear Dr. Craig, I recently read a comment from historian Paula Fredriksen of Boston University speaking of the original disciples of Jesus, she wrote, quote, "I'm not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn't there. I don't know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian, they must have seen something." End of quote. Is this an important consideration when making a case for the resurrection of Christ Jameson in Ireland?

Dr. William Lane Craig: Yeah. Absolutely, Jameson. Uh, this illustrates what I've often said is that the broad consensus in New Testament scholarship today, um, is that the disciples experienced appearances of Jesus alive after dead and that something must have happened on that Easter, um, morning that led to this dramatic change. Um, and so even someone like Paula Fredriksen, who is very skeptical, uh, will say there had to be some dramatic, transformative event in the lives of these men and women that birthed the Christian movement. Uh, and so that is something that any historian, uh, needs to account for. What is the origin of the Christian faith, and how do you best explain these apparitions that they saw of Jesus?

Kevin Harris: Next question. Dear Dr. Craig, thank you for your recent Reasonable Faith video addressing questions for kids and young adults as they head back to school. Just before the 13-minute mark, you say, "These events in the Gospels, in the life of Jesus, are multiply attested by different sources." Uh, end of quote there, quoting you. And he says, "I noticed you didn't refer to these as independent sources like in some of your writings. Was this an accidental omission, or do you now think the Gospels aren't independent sources?" That's John from Salt Lake City.

Dr. William Lane Craig: Yeah. Well, John, it was purely accidental. Um, the the point was that we have multiple early independent sources for the life of Jesus. But I do want to correct one thing you said. The claim is not that the Gospels themselves are independent, uh, because the Gospels likely used uh, one another. Rather, it is that the Gospels rely upon sources that are independent, sources that are even earlier than the Gospels themselves upon which they draw. And when you look at the sources that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John used for things like the burial narrative of Jesus and the empty tomb account, you find a a a wide number of early independent sources attesting to these events.

Kevin Harris: Next question. Dear Dr. Craig, my wife is not comfortable with women being head pastors of a church, but she is trying to decide if women, um, biblically, can teach an adult Sunday school class of both men and women. I see no problem with that. Uh, can you give us your thoughts?" That's Sydney in the US.

Dr. William Lane Craig: Well, very briefly, Sydney, I would say that women should not be in the position of teaching doctrine to men in the local church. So, they may teach a Sunday school class, uh, to adults where they're sharing things other than Christian doctrine. But it does seem to be that uh, Scripture restricts the teaching of doctrine to male authorities in the local church.

Kevin Harris: Bill, I wonder if God set it up that way for a particular reason. It's not that women are mentally or spiritually inferior or lacking in in certain abilities, but it's just somehow in the hierarchy, in the way that it all works somehow that, uh, that that's why, uh, that women don't don't take this uh, authority position.

Dr. William Lane Craig: Yes, we have examples of that sort of hierarchical structure among equals in the family where the, uh, father is the head of the home and the responsible for the family or most profoundly in the Trinity itself where you have the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit, and there are relations of submission even though these are equally divine persons who have all of the same qualities of divinity. So, we shouldn't think that submission, uh, to authority implies any sort of inferiority.

Kevin Harris: Okay. Next question from the UK. "Dr. Craig, if general and special revelation have the same infallible divine author, they cannot genuinely contradict one another. When the most natural reading of Scripture conflicts with overwhelming empirical evidence, by what non-circular criterion do you decide whether we have misunderstood nature, misunderstood Scripture, or wrongly identified the biblical claim as revelation at all without simply granting special revelation immunity from correction by definition?" Daryon in the UK.

Dr. William Lane Craig: I confronted this very question in my work on the historical Adam and Eve, um, because the existence of a single human pair as the progenitors of the entire human race was thought to be, uh, scientifically impossible that the population of humans on this planet never got below a breeding population of 10,000 or so people. And so this seemed to be in conflict with contemporary science. And so what I decided to do in working on this was I would simply bracket the science. I would set it to the side temporarily and I would try to interpret the Bible itself in terms of the way it would have been understood by the author and his audience.

And that gave me a reading of the primeval history of Genesis 1 to 11 that was quite startling for me and and really, um, changed a lot for me. And, um, then having determined what I thought the teaching of Scripture was independently of science, then I would go back to the to the modern science and say, are these compatible with each other? Where, uh, do conflicts arise? So, I think that you should not use your science to try to determine the teaching of Scripture. Let Scripture stand on its own, uh, and then you can see whether or not there will be a conflict.

Kevin Harris: Next question. Dear Dr. Craig, why do you think God allowed disputed passages to get into translations of the Bible? I'm thinking of the longer ending of Mark where it talks about handling snakes. Many Christians, especially in southern rural areas, have been killed trying to follow that passage. Thank you for your answer, Scott, in the US.

Dr. William Lane Craig: Yeah. Well, I would say, Scott, that this is in a sense just one more little example of the problem of evil. Why does God allow, uh, these bad things to happen? And I think that the, uh, overriding purpose of God in creating humanity on this planet is to bring into relationship with himself an optimal balance between saved and lost, to create as many, uh, persons who will freely come to him for salvation as possible while minimizing the number of those who would freely reject him. And that would be the overall overarching purpose for God, um, in the world.

And that could involve the permission of all sorts of evils and imperfections and infelicities along the way. Uh, with regard to your specific example, God would give people the freedom to copy manuscripts and to make mistakes. What would it do to human freedom of every time somebody tried to make a mistake that God were to intervene and prevent it? It's it would it's worth it to, uh, allow these imperfections to happen. He's preserved the original text for us regardless. Um, and so I think that's just part of, uh, a world of free creatures that is imperfect, uh, and that is moving toward this eschatological end of an optimal balance between saved and lost.

Kevin Harris: Yeah. And we're talking about the longer ending of Mark. It's it's not in the earliest manuscripts. But, Bill, it occurs to me that that passage does not say for you and me and for the Christian church to go out and handle snakes. Uh, it's not a uh, it's not an instruction to do so. Uh, so that's that's a pretty bad misinterpretation to think that, uh, you should pick up a rattlesnake, you know. It's not the problem of evil. It's the problem of being dumb. Perhaps.

Dr. William Lane Craig: This year Reasonable Faith is celebrating 20 years of ministry. When we launched this ministry in 2006, we wanted to make a major impact for the kingdom of God in the world. But I have to tell you, we never could have imagined how the Lord would multiply the influence of this ministry around the world. We are continually encouraged by people who write in to tell us that something they've read or something they've watched has helped them to come to Christ or to come back to Christ or to be deepened in their discipleship and commitment to Christ.

And that fruit belongs to you, our partners, as much as to us. So, I want to ask you personally to partner with us in giving this fall. Every year a group of generous donors pledges a matching grant. And this year they've committed to match every gift, dollar for dollar, up to $250,000 through December 31st. That means that your gift will literally be doubled and therefore have twice the impact. I have to tell you, I cannot think of any other ministry that gives you the bang for the buck that Reasonable Faith does. And so I would like to encourage you to prayerfully consider helping us to embark on our next 20 years of ministry.

From Jan, me, and the entire Reasonable Faith team, I want to express our gratitude for your partnership in this ministry.