Is there a link to the WLC statement on doubt? It would be great to read that first to be able to put the video you posted in context. Thanks!!
1 Like
I am not sure of a formal statement, but there is apparently a book, “Reasonable Faith,” in which he discusses this view (I have not read it.) Peaceful Science discussed his response to questions on this, per this transcript linked here. I would appreciate your thoughts.
I doubt William Lane Craig and all such Calvinist apologists.
Craig does Biblicism no credit as usual, as in his Kalam Cosmological Argument, the most referenced apologetic of all time I believe.
I long for a decent opposition to materialism, but there is none, but desire. Luckily I don’t long for opposition to generous orthodoxy which is as good as it gets and can ever get. Craig’s opposition to that has the same narrow wooden root of bitter fear, like Piper’s and all other damnationists. They have no concept of the greatness of God in His goodness. His big mindedness.
2 Likes
Again, this gets back to the issue of does God lie? No one seems to be bothered by that question. I will try to put it into a more formalized form.
-
The only person who could have told us what happened in Genesis 1 is God.
-
Parts of Genesis 2 could only be conveyed by God because God is the speaker and parts of the story are experienced only by God.
-
Jesus speaks of the flood as if it is real.
-
God doesn’t lie. (Num 23:19 and Romans 3:4)
-
Jesus and the father are one
-
Jesus doesn’t believe the events of the flood but says he does–that sounds like a lie to me.
7 If science says that there is no way for the stories to be real stories, of real historical events, then God should know that they are not real historical events and not speak of them as real historical events.
8 If God lies, can I trust what he says about the path to salvation? I can’t! I find it as odd, Marshall that this doesn’t bother people as you find it odd that I can’t accept a prevaricating untrustworthy God.
It seems to me that looking in the mirror is an insufficient test of needing salvation, for what we do. Chimpanzees engage in both intentional adultery and intentional mass murder within their tribes. Do they need salvation because they are Pongidae? Why didn’t you get your humanity and humaniarian problems from our ancestors the Chimps, just via evolution?
We’ve spun around that discussion many times, and I know your time to too valuable to waste on another loop. So how about I save us both some typing and just link to another place we’ve continued that loop, and then anyone interested can read my response, and your response to that, and so on for as long as they desire?
1 Like
No one’s bothered because it doesn’t rationally arise.
- The only person who could have told us what happened in Genesis 1 is God.
Not the story tellers?
- Parts of Genesis 2 could only be conveyed by God because God is the speaker and parts of the story are experienced only by God.
What about the story tellers?
- Jesus speaks of the flood as if it is real.
He assumed the sacred text. Like every one else in His culture. And then some.
- God doesn’t lie. (Num 23:19 and Romans 3:4)
Thank goodness for proof texts or we’d never know!
- Jesus and the father are one
Meaning what?
- Jesus doesn’t believe the events of the flood but says he does–that sounds like a lie to me.
Where does He say He doesn’t and then He does?
- If science says that there is no way for the stories to be real stories, of real historical events, then God should know that they are not real historical events and not speak of them as real historical events.
Ohhh, you mean from 5 that the pre-modern human Jesus knew what He knew pre-incarnate.
- If God lies, can I trust what he says about the path to salvation? I can’t! I find it as odd, Marshall that this doesn’t bother people as you find it odd that I can’t accept a prevaricating untrustworthy God.
I find it odder that the question can be asked.
Those who do not accept the words of Jesus as those which come directly from the Father will be judged by those words. If a person does not believe they are the very Word of God (which they are because they come from the Father and they are spoken by Jesus, WHO IS THE WORD THAT BECAME FLESH) they will still condemn them on the Day of Judgment.
Those who speak evil of Jesus are guilty of sin, though forgiveness can be found if they turn from their unbelief.
The wisdom of man is foolishness to God. The Word of God judges the thoughts and intents of the heart, who is able to stand against the Almighty and Jesus the Lord.
John 12:44Then Jesus cried out, "When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. 45 When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me. 46 I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. 47 “As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. 49 For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. 50 I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”
John 5:19-20"I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does.
John 18:37"You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
Rev 19:11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
No doubt…
Hi all,
I’m Dan Morton, Glenn Morton’s son (oldest of his three!). Due to his health situation, which some of you may know about, he’s unable to respond or post now. We’re continuing to pray for his comfort.
I’m posting because he did finish the book and we helped him get it onto Kindle yesterday! I’m starting with a reply here, since this was his last post to Biologos, but I’ll post separately too.
Finishing this book was hugely important to him, and we’re grateful it’s complete! I know he feels exceedingly grateful for the opportunity to have written it, as he does for the chance to engage with this community.
If you are interested in reading it, here’s the link:
Eden Was Here: New Evidence for the Historicity of Genesis – Glenn Morton
While he may not be able to post, I’m certain he’d be honored to have you all consider his viewpoint and the evidence he presents.
Thank you and Best,
Dan.
3 Likes
4 posts were merged into an existing topic: The Book is available – Eden Was Here: New Evidence for Historicity of Genesis
I moved several responses here over to the more dedicated thread you started, Dan, so that any responses people care to share can be more consolidated there, and … it deserves its own thread in its own right.
1 Like
Hi Randy,
I watched the Randal Rauser video and listened the the Craig Podcast episode referenced in the Peaceful Science blog you cited with interest.
I understand that there is great sensitivity to these questions from people who have been told by certain (well-meaning) Christians in the face of questions and doubt to “just have faith.” I have even heard people tell me that their parents have told them “not to question.” I agree that such responses are unhelpful, and can also be quite harmful in the face of real genuine questions. I strongly disagree with such sentiments. Rather, I believe that God wants us to take our questions seriously and that God wants us use the intelligent human minds that God gave us to think critically and rationally about what we believe and why we believe certain things.
One of my favorite Bible verses is Isaiah 1:18
“Come now, and let us reason together,”
Says the Lord,
“Though your sins are as scarlet,
They will be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They will be like wool.
In my opinion, and from what I have previously read and heard spoken and taught by William Lane Craig, Rauser seems to be taking Craig’s words out of context and could be misrepresenting Craigs views.
As you yourself have noticed, Craig takes reasoning and scholarship seriously, which is why he has spent his career focused on apologetics and providing reasons for belief in God.
As I understood the video of Craig and what Craig says in his podcast, Craig understands that we have different ways of knowing. Craig obviously takes doubt at face value, which is why he had done so much work in the area of apologetics and has spent much time debating atheists. From what I can tell, Craig is affirming the fact that we have different ways of knowing and that those various ways of knowing can all strengthen our faith. One way of knowing is through using reasoned arguments, anther way of knowing that can be encouraging to us and our faith would be the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives (Unfortunately, that second way of knowing is only at the disposal of born again or believing Christians, but not available to nonbelievers). Craig is not criticizing people who struggle with doubt, rather he is looking to provide encouragement to doubters to ensure them that God can help them deal with their questions. Even in the face of unanswered questions, we can reflect on our personal experiences with the Holy Spirit as a way of helping us through our periods of doubt. Obviously, Craig wants people to think and reason through their faith, which is why he himself has articulated rational arguments for the Christian faith. At the same time, Craig also wants to provide hope and encouragement that God can provide us with the knowledge of Himself through the Holy Spirit, even in the midst of our periods of doubt.
Since there are good reasons to believe, we can rest assured that God can handle our questions. We can take our questions to God and God can provide us answers and assurance of our faith. I have done this myself and have found those times doubt followed by hearing from God to ultimately deepen my faith. So I think God uses our doubts to draw us closer to Him.
God does not judge us for doubting (and Craig does not claim otherwise). A clear example of such lack of judgement is how Jesus responded to the disciple Thomas’ doubts: Jesus gave Thomas the experience Thomas needed to believe in Jesus.
John 20:24-29
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”
26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then He *said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus *said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”
Craig himself has had his own struggles with questions, and takes them head on, as I learned while watching this recent video of him talking about his search for Adam and Eve. See the angst that he expresses starting at minute 38 in that video. I admire Craig’s ability to wrestle with these difficult questions.
2 Likes
Thanks.for your excellent and detailed (and kind) response, @MOls. Michelle. I think you’ve done well. One element that I regret is that my title seemed to single out Dr Craig too much. I have therefore changed the title not to reflect his name (as long as it’s ok with the moderators). I apologize to Dr Craig and others for putting it that way.
I am going to have to read more (and likely purchase his book in addition to listening to all of the podcast that was transcribed, as well as your good link to Dr Swamidass’ interview.).
However, if you look up the Wikipedia on Reformed epistemology, it reviews different types, with similar critiques Reformed epistemology - Wikipedia. Van Til, who worked on presuppositional apologetics, adhered to this. Rauser actually is in some degree in favor of this sort, and his master’s thesis was on reformed epistemology. He posted another video on that, which I’ll review and post later. So, as my initial exposure to this sort of thinking was with Dr Craig, I addressed it with that video; but I’m piecing some of the actual roots together, and it seems to stem from a deeper root. I should have addressed it in that form, and I’ll try to do that as I’m understanding it better.
I would agree that most of the Bible can be used to refute the idea of God blaming us for honest doubt–especially the Psalms :).
Thanks.
2 Likes
I’ve been on vacation this week, and have been able to do some more listening. I learned that Dr Rauser actually does favor Reformed epistemology. His main difference with William Lane Craig is that our internal witness can be undermined (as Plantenga says). Now, Dr Craig says in his podcast that he agrees with Plantenga; but I’m not sure that’s quite accurate, as he says that the hard evidence is from inside, not from outside. If one Christian has to inform another about the evidence of an internal witness, then it seems that this occurrence alone is a good argument against Reformed epistemology. I am also buying the Audible version of “Reasonable Faith,” and will perhaps bring more thoughts.
Dr Craig alludes to Romans 1:20,
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
I question this application.
Randal Rauser discusses how. RC Sproul used Romans 1:20 when he addressed a group of atheists, and after coming to an end, he said,
I’m giving you arguments for the existence of God, but I feel like I’m carrying coals to Newcastle, because I have to tell you that I do not have to prove to you that God exists, because I think you already know it. Your problem is not that you do not know that God exists; your problem is that you despise the God whom you know exists. Your problem is not intellectual–it is moral; you hate God.
Rauser points out that, besides shutting down conversation by insulting his hearers, reading Romans 1:20 this way implies that anyone who fails at any time is sinfully repressing God’s obvious existence in nature. This excludes autistic people who have difficulty with abstract perceptions, holy people like Mother Theresa who doubt, and potentially others.
To me, God does not appear to use the Reformed epistemology to attract people to the faith or retain them.
Doesn’t the question then rise–when will God make things just? It appears that we can only rely on justice coming out in the wash–because God would not blame us for belief that we can’t help.
Thanks.
I’d appreciate your thoughts and critiques.
The problem with Van Til’s presuppositional approach is that it exaggerates the “noetic effects of sin” on the mind (i.e. “their thinking became futile…”). In his system, every thought of an unbeliever is tainted by sin. “Total depravity” prevents them from objectively weighing the evidence for Christian belief, so traditional apologetics using historical evidence or philosophical arguments are doomed to fail.
Here’s a good short article on Presuppositional Apologetics by John Frame. TL/DR: It’s a circular form of argument.
That’s using “hard evidence” in the opposite way that most people understand the term. Hard evidence is objective; internal evidence is subjective.
I don’t follow you here.
1 Like
Thanks for your clear thoughts. Sorry I was not.
I get the impression that in order to justify our impression of God and also of Romans 1:20, we very understandably make a claim which the Bible never makes: that God assures us of His truth all the time. If that were true, why would we even require to tell the gospel by word of mouth? (Rom 1:20 refers to general knowledge, not Christian, anyway I think).
Things really don’t seem fair in regards to truth. Where we are born, our mental abilities, and many other factors all decide whether we believe or keep our belief. It seems we can rely on God to be ultimately just as He knows our frame…He remembers that we are dust.
1 Like
Yes, I believe that to be true
1 Like
The conversation due to this interview is very interesting, so I apologize if I’m not keeping on point. @Randy, it is also my impression that this passage is about general knowledge, but I wonder if you or anyone has a deeper understanding of what it is communicating? I’ve heard it used quite often by Christians to declare (and usually scoff) that nonbelievers are responsible for seeing the Truth of God just by looking at how beautiful and powerful creation is. And something like, “how is it possible not to look outside and believe in God?” I agree this brings up the question of why we would need to speak the gospel (which implies relationship, which is clearly important to God). Some thoughts are:
- Considering my amateur interest in cultural anthropology, to my mind it seems that those who assume looking at nature is enough to believe in God is related to the privileges we do have in our wealth and comfort, and thus quite a Western society-centric interpretation. Some people don’t have to leave their homes to know of a humanitarian crisis in their lives, and as far as I know, no people group has come to this conclusion of saving faith in God, and instead create their own distinct religions.
- Romans 1:19, right before Paul says God’s invisible qualities are clearly seen, says, “since what may be known about God is plain to them, BECAUSE GOD has made it plain to them.” Is this passage referring only to those that God has opened the eyes of, those seed scattered among different terrain and ultimately respond differently to the knowledge of God due their hearts?
And 3. Could this passage be encouraging us to take seriously what the body of scientific evidence says about nature, how it was created, and that we find MORE of God’s character digging into the different scientific disciplines? (Such as fossils can show us God’s abundance, 13+ billion years before His image bearers arrive show God’s patience, etc.)
There seems to be so much opportunity for awe and wonder in discovery, and therefore much room for doubt when that is not being pursued.
2 Likes
I want to echo that I appreciate Dr Craig’s vulnerability and humility here. Thank you for that video. . I enjoyed thoroughly the interaction he had with Dr Swamidass. You could tell that coming from different viewpoints, they nevertheless enjoyed and learned from each other. I am in the process of listening to “Reasonable Faith” and am finding that it is a call away from anti intellectualism. I am looking forward to it. I will try to post a book review on it sometime. I am sure he will teach me a lot.
2 Likes