Meeting Dr. William Lane Craig at Rutgers University

Dr. William Lane Craig is a philosopher, apologist, professor and theologian who frequently debates top atheists, defending the claim that belief in God is more reasonable than unbelief in God.  He is the founder of Reasonable Faith, a ministry dedicated to defending the faith of Christianity.  It is a place where critics and skeptics can find thoughtful answers to tough questions, and challenges Christians to come to a fuller understanding of their faith.

I am a follower of William Lane Craig in the sense that I am always listening and reading his work, and was fortunate enough to meet him at his lecture on The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe at Rutgers University.  The next day, we participated in a more personal Q&A with about 30 people present, where we were able to just pick his brain.  My friend Matt came all the way from Pittsburgh to hear this guy speak—we were pretty excited!
COMPELLING QUESTIONS
I’ve decided to blog on the questions my friends and I asked.  I’ve paraphrased the questions and answers based off of my notes for a better understanding of what was asked:

1. Why do you not hold church tradition to the same bar as scripture? (Sid)
           
2. Why do you not hold to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation? (Sid)

3. How does your view of Molinism effect the Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility? (Matt)

4. How do we classify angelic beings? Are angels temporal beings that belong to our universe? (Christen)

5. Where do we go in the afterlife?  Is it in this universe?  Where is it located? (Christen)

6. How do you define and defend the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture? (Me)

7. Can people come to Christ without an explicit knowledge of the Gospel? (Christen)

8. Can you be saved without knowing you are? (Someone else)

9. What does the statement, “Son of God, begotten of the Father,” from the Nicene Creed really mean?  Aren’t the Trinity supposed to be equal in power and nature? (Matt)


1. Why do you not hold church tradition to the same bar as scripture? (Sid)
Tradition simply hasn’t shown itself as a reliable source of New Testament exegesis.  Our understanding of the scriptures has only increased, and in the past few decades, New Testament theologians and translators have pioneered scriptural exegesis, not church tradition.

2. Why do you not hold to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation? (Sid)
The doctrine of transubstantiation is a fantastic interpretation, and is just plain obvious that Jesus is using a metaphor when he tells his disciples to “eat his body,” (Matthew 26:26-30).  How could his disciples eat his body when his body was right in front of them?  The words used contain symbolic meaning, and Jesus used metaphors frequently.  There is simply no reason to assume anything else is meant here.

3. How does your view of Molinism effect the Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility? (Matt)
Molinism would respond by saying that God’s middle knowledge allows him to know what the Pope would say in any possible world, so God places who would be Pope knowing what the Pope would say ex cathedra.  However, the opposite cannot be blamed on God, that all the Pope’s mistakes are God’s fault, because God knew the Pope would commit them.  Libertarian freedom doesn’t require that no mistakes would be made.  However, as Protestants, we do not ascribe to Papal infallibility, so we don’t have to worry about this.

4. How do we classify angelic beings? Are angels temporal beings that belong to our universe? (Christen)
First of all, there isn’t really a lot of biblical data on angels, so it’s hard to make factual claims about them.  That being said, they are temporal beings, as evidenced by the fact that they have their own thoughts and actions.  It’s possible that they were created before the universe was created, in a sort of “pre-time,” or a metaphysical time, but we just don’t know.

5. Where do we go in the afterlife?  Is it in this universe?  Where is it located? (Christen)
The afterlife is certainly in time, as we will receive temporal, resurrected bodies, not simply disembodied souls.  As far as where it is located?  Some speculate that Hell is in different dimension of space, which is indeed possible, but once again we just don’t know the details.

6. How do you define and defend the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture? (Me)
Inerrancy and infallibility of scripture would be defined as being true in all that it teaches.  This gives some “wiggle room” when it comes to interpretation.  This means that when Jesus talks about a mustard seed being one of the smallest seeds in the world, it’s not an error because he was giving a lesson on faith, not in botany.  He would defend it by saying that this was clearly Jesus’ view of scripture, and as his disciples, we adopt the same view he did.

7. Can people come to Christ without an explicit knowledge of the Gospel? (Christen)
Using the Old Testament as our guide, yes it is at least possible for this to happen.  Biblical characters such as Job and Melchizedek didn’t have any knowledge of Jesus Christ, and also weren’t Jews or related to God’s promises for Israel, but clearly knew God and were saved.  This means that there definitely could be some modern day “Jobs” or “Melchizedeks” today who have not heard an explicit knowledge of the Gospel, but may still have an understanding of God and can be saved.  However, this does not mean they are saved without Jesus; Jesus’ work on the cross is still applied to them.  This is the only way to be saved.  However, the vast majority of mankind is not saved in this way if we take Romans 1 seriously.

8. Can you be saved without knowing you are? (Someone else)
Yes, assurance of your faith is psychological.  Doubting Christians are still saved; God’s grace wouldn’t disappear just because someone isn’t sure about it.  A man said to Jesus, “I do believe, but help me overcome my unbelief!” (Mark 9:24).

9. What does the statement, “Son of God, begotten of the Father,” from the Nicene Creed really mean?  Aren’t the Trinity supposed to be equal in power and nature? (Matt)
We can simply disagree with the Church Fathers on the wording of the Son being “begotten” of the Father.  This is definitely a metaphysical description, but not describing the actual divine nature of the Trinity.  The Son was already existing “in” the Father, then comes forth from the Father.  “Begotten” can simply mean unique, possibly even in reference to his human nature, but certainly not in reference to his divine nature.  The Son does not depend on the Father for his existence.  This would introduce subordination into the Trinity.  As Protestants, we have no allegiance to the Nicene Creed or the Church Fathers, so we do not have to hold to this view.


SOME OTHER THOUGHTS
I asked the question on Biblical inerrancy, and kind of wished I followed up on it.  I wanted to ask how this view would apply to the New Testament (I already blogged on this point and came to the same conclusion he did, which made me feel kind of smart.  You can check that out here).  I still am not sure how to defend the inspiration and infallibility of the New Testament to the same degree of certainty as the Old Testament, and kind of wished I followed up with that.
It was a privilege meeting Dr. William Lane Craig face to face, and being able to pick his brain in a more personal setting.  This guy is one my heroes in the faith, and the ministry of Reasonable Faith has greatly influenced my thinking, my faith, and the way I do ministry.  Thanks Dr. Craig!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

LOTR On Prime: Timeline of The Second Age

WHO IS THE BEST BATMAN?