Dr. Craig is such a tender, humble, and gentle man, besides of course being an astonishing intellectual asset to the Christian faith. What a gift to the Church.
As much as I delight in those who look to Christ seeking unity (as Christ prayed for Himself), the Catholic faith is not a 'denomination' 'within' Christianity. It is Christianity. It was started by Jesus, not a mere man, and is that which St. Jude called in his Epistle, "the faith once for all delivered to the saints." Not only is it's obviously so, but no other 'denomination' even points you to history to verify such. Just like no church even claims to be the church Christ founded on Peter ("Thou art Rock [Petros] and upon this rock [petra] I will build my church"), as the Catholic Church alone does.
Ave Christus Rex no...it’s Not. I don’t know how Catholics go back and claim that status. Sooo many man made traditions and doctrines and beliefs in the Catholic Church it’s sad
@@asmallfarmhomestead3657 What do you mean by manmade? There are traditions we believe came from the apostles, who are men. There are traditions that we believe came from God, that is, Jesus. There are traditions passed on, or if not taught, at least witnessed to, in Scripture. There are also traditions gathered over time as people found maturer and maturer, God-honoring ways to worship God, such as the tradition of churches, or buildings for worship made specifically for God and worship. Don't just repeat the 'muh traditions of men' mantra. Jesus only ever taught against traditions which you give forth to the detriment of keeping God's. E.g., the commandment says, "Honor your father and mother," yet they made up a law saying that when someone helps their parents, it is gratuitous, a gift, and thus not your duty. That's completely stripping away one's ability to keep the commandment of God. No Catholic tradition contradicts any of God's commandments.
@@asmallfarmhomestead3657 Well all doctrine is taught through men, but which ones come from God or not: how does the sinlessness of the new Eve contradict God in any way?
Hey Matt. 🙂 I first found William Lane Craig on RUclips about 12 years ago when was I skeptical about the existence of God and looking for debates between Theists and Atheists about this. His Kalam Cosmological Argument in particular had a huge impact on me. After becoming persuaded by the evidence for the existence of God, I looked into research about the Resurrection of Jesus from Gary Habermas, Mike Licona and William Lane Craig. The evidence we have for the Resurrection convinced me and I am now a Christian since 2017. 😊
Faithful Catholic here saying that - without WLC I wouldn't even have been a Christian! A fountain of knowledge. His sharp debating reignited a spark in me that I forgot was lit ages ago. Supreme scholar, master apologist and always a gentleman. I don't wear a hat, but if I did, it would always be off in front of this man. Looking forward to this one!
About 7-8 years ago when I was 18. He supported my faith with his debates and got me interested in philosophy. Im now doing a philosophy masters degree.
God forever bless Dr. William Lane Craig. After watching him during a debate in middle school, I began the process of ditching forever the darkness of atheism.
In what way is atheism "darkness"? I define atheism as the position of suspending acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones. Wouldn't you agree?
@@G8rfan61 What you call atheism is by definition agnosticism, which within degrees is a rational position to take. As a permanent position, it is more flawed than its counterparts.
@@myutubechannel_nr1 Your argument is a pure strawman. I'm Christian and run in Christian circles, and your argument leaves well over 99% of the Christian position on the matter.
My first journey into Christianity definitely started with that legendary debate between Hitchens and Craig. That debate really challenged me to question why I believe what I believe. Many years later I would eventually come to faith but it definitely started with this debate.
As a devout Catholic, I have the utmost respect for William Lane Craig. After watching this video, I have a newfound respect (hardly thought that possible considering my admiration and respect for him already) for Matt Fradd. He is brilliant in that he was so incredibly polite and yet never once capitulated his truly heartfelt Catholic faith. God bless both of these honorable men.
I'm Catholic and Dr Craig was the first Christian apologist I really listened to, and his logic and clarity really influenced me in reverting to the faith. When I eventually discovered Aquinas everything clicked into place for me intellectually, and as I've grown in knowledge a little of the faith and theology there are areas where I don't agree with Dr Craig, but I still think he is a fantastic apologist and a lovely man, and I'm always keen to his arguments. Also the level of abuse he has taken as the foremost exponent of the hated Kalam argument speaks volumes both for his own integrity and for the lack of class (and substantive arguments) of those who attack him.
What a treat for the morning of a day off from work! I love conversations like this! I just came into the Catholic Church a little over two years ago from being a “none.” Prior to becoming Catholic, I had not a clue that there was any difference between Christians. I really think we all need to stick together and support one another because the secular world will attack us equally. Conversations like this help!
@Max Wylde Too bad Mormons are spreading a completely fallacious doctrine filled with heresies. Same goes with Catholicism and every other denomination. These religions have strayed away from the word of God and implemented their own interpretations and beliefs , added to the text and or taken away from it in order to frame their own doctrines.
@@christsawakening9702Actually, the catholic Church has shown a humility (especially in the last couple of centuries) in regards to accepting the scientific advancements. It's shown over the last millenia that reason and faith are not mutually exclusive, and that reason based in faith is a powerful tool for guiding people to God, deepening the meaning of the scriptures, and translating the Word into something that feels relevant to the modern age. The Catholic theology, I believe, is the most complete. When science showed that certain interpretations of scripture were false (we can use evolution as an example, as well as the earth-centric view of the cosmos), the interpretations of the scripture had to change. But God's first and final presence, his omnipotence, his omniscience, his justice, love, wrath, mercy, and forgiveness haven't changed at all. The entire story of the Bible with climaxed with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ hasn't changed. This is still central to the doctrine of Catholicism. What in particular are you opposed to?
@@BrandonMather8 My advice leave them be. Satan "tortured me", most likely I tortured myself because I let myself fall into the cirlce of doubt and questioning everything. Just like you said with the basics and the center/foundation of the Catholic Chruch and what we as catholics/christians spin around, hold on to as most and only important. You will say that the early, first churches were catholic and the eucharist they obeyed, is the same as we have today - body and blood of Jesus Christ and you will find and explain more than dozen of scripture evidence and then you will explain them why the authority of the Chruch metters and when Paul said to Timothy that all Scripture is inspired, but also said that Timothy hangs on and passes on the words he SAID, then you will explain the Mary and the saints thing, then the sacraments and in the end probably how Sola Scriptura theory "kills" it self. AND THEN they will find EVERY OTHER SCRIPTURE BASED COUNTER VERSE. Also most of them will not spend any minute trying to hear what you/we are saying and why is it like the things I wrote above. AND THEN they will call you heretic INSTEAD of WE TOGETHER AS CHRISTIANS!?!?!?!?!?! LOVE NOT JUST OTHER CHRISTIANS, BUT EEEEEEVEEEEERYBODY AND INSTEAD OF GOING OUT (or starting at your own family/neighbourhood/school/work etc.) TO OTHER "FAITHS/RELIGIONS" WHAT WE DO????? WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WE ALREADY HAVE AGREED ON. CHRIST RESSURECTED, HE IS THE ONLY SAVIOUR, WE ARE GOING TO HIM, HOLY SPIRIT GUIDES US AND IT IS INSIDE OF US. BUT NOOOOO "WE MUST ARGUE, WE MUST FIGHT" WHEN THERE IS SOOOOOOO MUCH PEOPLE THAT NEEEEEEVER AND I SAY NEVEEEEER HEARD OR DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT JESUS AT ALLLLLLL!!!!!!!! PEOPLEEEE, BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST, IN WHO? THAT'S RIGHT IN CHRIST!! PLEAAAASE I BEG YOU FOR THE SAKE OF US ALL AND THE PEOPLE THAT REALLY NEED SALVATION STOOP ARGUING AND HATING/ATTACKING/ACCUSING BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT WONT TO UNDERSTAND OUR PERSPECTIVE (the main foundation like I wrote already is the same!!!!!) THEN DONT HATE OR CALL BLASPHEMY OR HERESY. You know who laughs at us? The devil, the true enemy, like that scene in The Avengers (first part) when they all get into an argument because Loki tricked them. The same thing the devil is doing to us.... How can you not seeeee??????????? What did Paul said about Love, even if he had all the gifts of The Holy Spirit and if he didn't have love, he would be nothing. Sorry for the caps, but pleaseeee I pray stop it once and for all and focus TOGETHER IN LOVE on to a real enemy. God bless all 🤍
So exciting to find this interview. My husband introduced me to William Lane Craig. He brought my husband to Belief in God and Christianity. My son’s middle name is Craig for that reason :)
Thanks for not falling for the bologna advice of Catholics who wanted you to turn this into a rivalry debate between Catholicism and Protestantism! I learned a lot from this show because of it.
Yes, quite right, that's right, (my goodness use your real name you are with brothers and sisters.) We should not be arguing with each other but joining to argue that killing innocent babies in their mother's womb is murder as that godless individuals in our society are getting away with murder while we argue doctrine, when we have secured the mother's womb to make it a safe place for the gift that God has given, then we can argue doctrine.
@@sarahclark5447 I am on RUclips which is not limited to Christian brethren. We all have our ways of staying as safe as we can online. I believe you are correct that all Christians must unite to battle our common enemy. Doctrine is important and has it's place so long as we never forget we are living in the world ruled by dark forces that seek to keep Jesus Christ from everyone.
@@jwatson181 Funny, the evidence lead me in the opposite direction. Protestants who act like you often remind me of the atheist sophisters like Christopher Hitchens.
Matt, I just came across your channel this week. Theologically, I'm a something of a "reformedish" Baptist, but I appreciate your content and your heart which is evident in your videos. Grace and peace to you, brother.
Loved this discussion! Watching WLC in a debate was my first experience with apologetics and he impressed me very much. Regarding the question what can Catholics learn from Protestants, what I admire most about Protestants, especially Evangelicals, is they are not shy about sharing their faith anyone. We Catholics can learn a lot from them.
I’m glad Dr Craig mentioned Dr Alex Pruss. He’s a tour de force! He’s also a fellow Catholic! I highly recommend his work. He’s got a great article on the Leibnizian Contingency Argument in the ‘Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.’
Great role modeling for how faithful Christians can find common ground with each other in ways that strengthen the faith, respecting differences in perspective. Admirable. The Devil loves to focus on what divides. Well done, gentlemen!
Dr.William Lane Craig, you are the best! What an impossibly good interlocutor! Such a deep respect for others beliefs, such a calm and collected mannerism, such an open and perspicacious mind! God bless you, my brother, from a catholic to you
What a wonderful person Dr. Craig is. I have watched many of his debates and enjoy him everytime. God bless you, Dr. Craig and God bless you, Matt Fradd.
Though your respect for your guest is apparent, I'm so glad you challenged him on the "celibacy of priests is an undue burden" idea. You saw him consider it again as soon as you asked about the Episcopal communities, but hearing you imply "Your argument says all men are pedophiles and marriage directs that energy elsewhere" almost immediately changed his thinking. Well done.
I've started looking at celibacy in a little different way. The crisis isn't because celibacy has caused un-satiated desire to explode in these abusers. That's never been the problem. The abuse crisis is because Bishops and clergy don't believe in the value of celibacy. Witness Cardinal Cupich talking at the Bishops conference about consensual relationships being handled separately. If the Cardinals don't expect the priests to live celibacy, the gift is thrown away already.
@@deaconken3752 if celibacy is relaxed... there is a serious risk of people viewing priesthood as a lucrative profession rather than a vocation... Especially in developing nations like mine...🙁
Michael A Ratnam I’m not necessarily advocating for married priests. The argument was celibacy leads to abuse. No, it’s the current disregard for vows made by priests and then bishops accepting “consensual” relationships that create the conditions for abuse. As for clergy getting rich, have you followed the money corruption by bishops? Just normal priests live pretty good right now, honestly. The change with heterosexual married clergy is they will want to leave an inheritance. But even so, will they accumulate more than say a teacher?
I respect the both of you tremendously. WLC is a legend but you conducted yourself quite well in this interview. I attempt to engage in discussion with those differing from the Faith in this same manner. We need everyone wishing to engage in Catholic Apologetics to watch how y’all engage one another. Civility is paramount to success.
I differ theologically with Dr. Craig, but I believe his work is immensely valuable in the face of growing secularism. Christianity needs to reclaim our vigorous intellectual tradition, in both the Catholic and Protestant congregations!
@@anahata3478 But most of today is radical secularism, which is a religious worldview in itself. Key: It is very important how you define 'separation of church and state (found nowhere in the Constitution)
@J w I set up the following Reddit thread, a while back, to help facilitate that very desire. Go here and follow the instructions (pass this on): *William Lane Craig on the Joe Rogan Experience:* www.reddit.com/r/ReasonableFaith/comments/bdis1w/william_lane_craig_on_the_joe_rogan_experience/
Dedicated Protestant, love Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. I have more than one Thomas Aquinas necklaces. Just subscribed. Watching this channel makes me want to get a devout Catholic and Orthodox friend 😂
There was a case of an amputated leg being healed and I specifically remembered it because it got one atheist doctor whose specialized in those things convert after he had said that's the only thing that would convert him. And he definitely did not expect a case like that...
this is insane to me haha we literally study William Lane Craig's Kalam argument in my Philosophy, Ethics, and Religion course at college never expected i'd find an episode of him on pints with aquinas
I got to meet him earlier this year (pre-COVID-19 breakout) and he signed my Bible. Such a nice man. Love hearing him make a case for our faith. Wonderful interview. Thank you for your content.
Love Dr. Craig for his ability to brilliantly defend Christianity! Dr. Craig is a true warrior of God whom has provided the answers to help gird the attacks of the evil one! God bless Dr. Craig!
I have watched Dr. William Craig's debate against prominent atheists of the likes of Christopher Hitchens. So far he is superb in presenting and defending the theistic arguments for the existence of God and the foundation of the Christian religion. I hope he will continue his journey and arrive at the fullness of the Catholic faith.
I hadn't heard this argument against the hiddenness of God before, and the recommendation to read Pascal's book is most welcome. Thank you for the great interview.
WLC is so gosh darn likeable. He’s gracious and understanding and articulates things well. This Catholic is really appreciative of men like WLC for helping me to deepen my faith.
Thank you for the interview. He's the best Christian apologist. El mejor apologista cristiano que tenemos. Felicidades por tan rica entrevista de alto nivel. Bendiciones
@@jarlaxledaerthe4045 Yes I did read it. Now, can you defend your position? And if you can't, then who is the best defender of YOUR position? (Perhaps I was unclear previously?)
@@jarlaxledaerthe4045 Hm. Looks like we've got an elephant hurler here. I'll count to 3... *P1:* I think you are mostly operating on old info. Much has changed in recent years, and scoffers such as yourself are running out of excuses... As for all your other unsubstantiated claims, please. You have no argument. *P2:* Clearly not factual? Based upon what assumptions? (Most of your assumptions regarding your skepticism - I've little doubt is faulty and likely inconsistent.) Also, such a shame that you don't apply the same standards to your own faith or to anything else from antiquity for that matter. Perhaps this is because you've got a philosophical bias? Jar, don't you believe that you are a talking animal? More importantly, are you a good person? Do you believe that men ought to strive to be good? If you were to judge yourself according to the standard presented in The 10 Commandments of Exodus 20, would you be innocent or guilty? *P3:* What vague prophecies? Some are vague! Some are not... Still, since it is obvious that you are not willing to consider the Christian faith, perhaps you can tell me about your own position and explain why it is that I should believe whatever it is that you do? _Maybe that would be more productive?_ If everyone you knew lived according to Judeo-Christian principles, would that make the world a better or worse place?
@@jarlaxledaerthe4045 *P1:* I did not see any kind of compelling or historical, fact based argument of any kind. I think that you are either badly misinformed, delusional or simply a liar. *P2:* If you believe that Big Bang cosmology, abiogenesis, or Darwinian mythology are factual, then you're completely insane and need someone to challenge you regarding the facts of empirical science! Also, IF the first verse of the Bible is true, nothing else in the Bible is impossible. Your conclusion is a non-sequitur. But then, if there is no God, then there is no reason for you to be an apologist for your own position - which is no doubt something you couldn't do anyhow. *P3:* None of those things are condone or advocated for in any way in the Bible. But clearly you do believe in objective moral values and duties - that are also timeless! However, that is not possible if what YOU believe is true! I'm afraid that you are being neither rational nor consistent in your line of reasoning.
What a great interview. Mr. Fradd, you did what an interviewer is supposed to do: you brought out the best in the interviewee. I appreciate the cordial discussions as well.
Mr Craig is a gift from God. But I spent my time around a few different large protestant churches, Willow Creek being one of them and even married pastors will fall into patterns of sexual misconduct of all shapes and sizes. Working in leadership positions across a number of protestant churches before returning to catholicism a common thread I saw was that being a pastor or preacher is always at odds with your responsibilities as a husband and father. I never saw a pastor who was able to balance all 3. While working in the catholic church, I have seen much greater harmony with clerics and priests because they don't struggle those opposing forces. The two big things that drew me back into catholicism is the very clear and unified sexual ethic, and the clerical order as a whole.
Not a good argument. First of all, any anecdotical argument is fallacious. I easily can say I know pastors that balance life and their calling very well. Second, your subjective opinion is irrelevant to theological issues. God clearly states in the Bible that there can be priests with wives. EVEN if celibacy is preferred, you cannot be against the very words of God. Priests should marry if they want to do it.
@@noescape2108 Some say it is infallible, but the concept seems to be problematic. Some say it is "inerrant", which is logically possible and plausible. Others say it is neither. Either way, the issue here is that, to build a theological case for celibacy, you necessarily need to start with the two options given in the Bible. In order to ignore the marriage option... a) You would have to dismiss the books that mention the "marriage" option and consider those Bible books as apocryphal, which is anti-Catholic. b) You would have to dismiss that specific verses and accept the rest of the text, which is arbitrary.
@@youtubecom5478 , you're very logically rigorous, but I think you're missing an important nuance here (that Matt Fradd hit on): the difference between doctrine and discipline. Priestly celibacy is a discipline in the Latin Rite (with limited exceptions for some convert priests), which is subject to change by decree coming from authority (The Church). There is a hierarchy of church law and obedience to Christ (to include the body of Christ / His Church) trumps flexible options described in scripture. Similar to how state laws can never trump the federal constitution. Note1: the Catholic Church doesn't derive its authority from scripture, it derives its authority from Jesus Christ (which is inerrantly described in scripture, Matt 16:19). Reminder, the Catholic Church assembled the various books of the bible around the 4th and 5th centuries. Note2: Catholic Permanent Deacons are married men.
@@jonathanbourret2968 Yeah well authority is the crux of the matter and where you place it. But even if THEE CHURCH gets its authority from Jesus Christ, the only reason that it does is because the scriptures say so. This is of course, if we assume the interpretation of scripture in regards to Peter and a catholic conceptualization of the church.
It’s only when you understand the True God of the Bible and the True Gospel is where you will fall to your knees/face in worship/admiration/love/repentance!
Dr. William Lane Craig I have so much respect for! Thank You for sharing your knowledge… And Matt I appreciate you putting these videos and having great convos with my like minded Protestants.
Phew, it got a little tense at the end with WLC trying to blame celibacy for the sexual abuses. You did a good job responding and bringing up the Anglican Church. Next time bring up the John Jay Report and how Priests have lower percentages of abuses when compared to Pastors, Teachers and even in the general US population
power50001562 Celibacy isn’t the issue, the issue is that it’s forced or “mandatory celibacy” it’s found nowhere in scripture, and early Roman Catholic Priest actually could marry 🤷🏽♂️
@@justchilling704 Yes, flatheads, the Church that has been around for more than 2000 years with a robust theological and philosophical tradition somehow missed that detail, which, also somehow, a teenager with a RUclips account managed to find.
When I was a teenager I formulated a version of Pascal's wager and determined a death with belief is objectively better than a death without. But beliefs don't change reality, and I don't want to be delusional. Ends up that as GOD (I Am That I AM) is the basis of reality I have been irresistibly drawn in to the revelation of the scriptures. Dr. Craig's books and argumentation has been very instrumental for me.
Dr William Lane Craig's take on Dr. Hawking and his embrace of ontological pluralism in the model dependent reality is a great service to Christianity. I'm very grateful for his service to the community.
Interesting, the mini-discussion about celibacy kind of shows the opposing paradigms of Catholicism vs. Protestantism. The Protestant preacher is sort of a model of Christlike living, whereas the priest performs sacraments In Persona Christi, and priestly celibacy is sort of the priests bearing witness with his own body by conforming to the same celibacy of Christ, and to the fact that in Christ's Kingdom we neither marry nor are given in marriage.
@Tiger wasn't always the case in the eastern church. To this day for example, bishops may not marry and priests are forced to practice some periods of sexual abstinence
First of all Matt, I'd like to commend you on the wonderful job you did in interviewing Dr. Craig. Most of what we see of Dr. Craig on the internet involves his participation in highly structured debates. It was nice to see him in a more informal setting where his audience is afforded an opportunity to gain insight into Dr. Craig as a person. He seems like a really sincere and nice guy. I'm a Catholic who's been following Dr. Craig for about 15 years. He's largely responsible for my return to the Church and the fortification of my faith. I am forever thankful to him for that. Again, great work Matt. You've just gained an additional follower.
Great talk. Wish you would have closed in prayer. Id like to add that, for both Catholics and Protestants, the Old Testament needs to play a far greater role in Catechesis, apologetics, etc. A major stumbling block, for many, exists in being able to properly defend the more harsh pronouncements in books like Leviticus. An opponent simply stating provocative portions of mosaic law makes for such effective rhetoric that I've seen nearly all Atheistic debaters (Hitchens, Dawkins, Shermer, etc) resort to it when cornered. I know for certain we lose a lot of young people (myself included) because our formation didn't properly prepare us for the assaults of atheists in college who bring up belittling scripture versus about not wearing mixed fabrics, piercing your slaves ear, or slaughtering every Amalakite man woman and child (among MANY others). It's made the German bishops uncomfortable enough to suggest jettisoning the Old Testament altogether. To me it seems that crafting a coherent defense of the O.T might be a place where Catholics, Protestants, and even Jews can work together.
A great book for that which comes at the issue in keeping with Catholic Tradition is called "The Dark Passages of the Bible" by Dr. Matthew Ramage www.amazon.com/Dark-Passages-Bible-Engaging-Scripture/dp/0813221560
I am 3 years late but lovely interview Matt. Cheers. I belly laughed a few times at both you and your guest's remarks. The "You're only an atheist because you were raised in Portland, Oregon" was good and Dr Bill's comment about how God could let someone hit themselves in the thumb with a hammer was classic. Again, lovely. Thank you.
Im so grateful we have these conversations recorded which will last (at least I hope) even beyond our own lifetimes and the lifetimes of persons such as WLC - and Matt Fradd!
In Aquinas's "Contra Gentiles" he describes how to talk to or debate people outside the Catholic faith. With Jews you debate using the Old Testament. With Muslims, in Aquinas's day you could debate philosophy. The reason why a Christian debating an atheist is so difficult is because the Christian tries to prove his argument using only the Bible. We know the Bible is a valid thing, but it is not helpful when debating an atheist.
Hey John, if you want to be aware of some of the arguments you can make to prove that an infinite past is impossible therefore proving that a finite past is then the only rational conclusion, I can let you know some arguments that make that case: The most popular approach I have seen used to show this is to illistrate how it is mathematically impossible to "have" an infinite number of anything as it causes impossible outcomes. Problems with this mathematicaly will typically get illustrated by discussing scenarios like a library with an infinite number of red and blue books. If you take out all the red books how many blue books are left? An infinite amount. How many red books did you take? An infinite amount. If you put the red books back would you double the amount of books in the library? No, because it would still be infinite. You see the idea of already having an infinite of something is problematic the more you think of it mathematically. Now you can say, well dont you claim that you can have the future go on for an infinite amount of time? Yes, the difference is we do not claim to have passed an infinite amount of time or in the scenario it would be the equivalent of saying we no longer have possesion of an infinite amount of books but the amount of finite books we do have are being added to continually without end. Therefore mathematically we are still working with finite numbers and dont run into impossible conclusions and outcomes. This is what reality and logic leads us to conclude. My personal issue with an infinite regression (tho I have never seen anyone use this argument) is the problem of causation. We consider the future to be potentialy infinite. Even if we are not here, reality would continue. What we do today will affect the future as it continues in time. Well if an infinite regression is possible and the past is also ongoing and unending then it must be possible in an infinite regression to continue to have new causes in the unending past. Any new cause should still be able to effect all future events in the same timeline but that goes against what we experience as true. Because it seems that we have a stable reality in the sense we do not witness our reality changing continually in this manner it would suggest that we have a stable finite past instead of unstable ever changing infinite past. My favorite and most easily understood response to the impossibility of an infinite past is the following argument I have heard Frank Turek use: If our past is infinite we would never reach the present or any finite point in time because there would have to be an infinite amount of days that are required to pass before we get there which is impossible. The reason you can have an infinite future is because there is no reference to a finite end. The moment you mention a point in the future there has to be a finite amount of days to get there to actualize it. Infinite has no end point. We have to understand that time goes from past to present. To traverse through time and arrive at any finite point you must admit to a finite amount of days to get there. All of these arguments and many more like them show that our past can not be infinite and therefore must be finite. Therefore "time" had a begining. Now if "time" had a begining then based on Einstein's theory of relativity which shows that space matter and "time" are co relative (meaning they came into existence together) then we can safely conclude that space, time, and matter all had a begining. So is the past infinite or finite? Finite. Does the science back this up with what we now know about our universe? Yes. “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” - Alexander Vilenkin Q and A on this topic with Frank Turek: ruclips.net/video/sjZy3U58fEY/видео.html ruclips.net/video/0_EL2tEBGbI/видео.html
@@wheretruthleads Re: "If our past is infinite we would never reach the present or any finite point in time because there would have to be an infinite amount of days that are required to pass before we get there ..." The key is that an *actually existing infinite* number of days is not required to reach today, since only 1 moment ever occurs at a time (on presentism). I do think arguments against the infinity of the past work if B theory is true (since then the past is an actual infinite). But on presentism (where only the NOW of time exists), I don't see how any of the descriptions like Hilbert's Hotel and others apply to the universe (since they all require the actual infinite to be instantiated all at once), but the universe isn't like that. Curious to hear your thoughts.
I am a practicing Catholic and have great admiration and respect for Dr Craig and his work. He is my go to for philosophy/theology, a great Christian thinker. I partially agree with Dr Craig about celibate priests. I affirm that celibacy (or rather the constant decision to live chastely) is an important aspect of priesthood. But should it be a necessary condition for priesthood, strictly speaking? Allowing married priests in my mind would not only show movement towards dealing with sexual related problems, (not that celibacy is the cause) but at the same time it would reaffirm the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. I am not saying that we abolish celibacy for priests strictly speaking, but having the option open may well be beneficial. I may be wrong here but even some of the apostles were married and a strong case can be made. Additionally is celibacy the right term to use? Because a person can be celibate by nature or accident. Maybe a better way to refer to it is choosing to live chastely or something like that. Furthermore, it is not only priests who are called to live chastely but even married couples are too. For it is certainly possible to get drunk on your on wine. I recognise that there is also the issue practicality regarding married priests, but I think those kinds of issues can easily be resolved. It seems to me it is an issue worth looking into.
Great show Matt! How unfortunate that it only went on for an hour :/. I'm sure there were legitimate reasons why it was so but I was hoping that it would fill my whole afternoon with theology and philosophy. Nevertheless I did enjoy it and you certainly carried yourself well here. Us catholics can be proud of your openness towards dialogue and defense of celibacy alike. I would've like to hear WLC talk more on the subject of Catholic-Protestant relations, differences and possible bridges to build between us. His calm and confident demeanor supported by your hosting prowess would be a great combination for such a dialogue to exist. However in his eagerness to not expand the divide between Catholics and Protestants, he is a bit too reluctant to engage even in just a "thought-experimentish" exchange. I would agree that we should not cause any additional problems between the groups but I'd also emphasize that if there ever was a time to converse with friendship in mind and fellowship inside the soul- it is now, under the "boot" of modernity that comes for all. Regarding the Celibacy issue. The level of civility and mutual respect here is to be admired. It is precisely in this manner that we should proceed to engage one another. Ignoring our differences will always be like ignoring a spark near a haystack. Talking about them with love, care and kindness in order to better understand and possibly resolve some, that's the way to go! For all of us...screeching and spewing hate will only freeze any movement inside the soul. Truth gets to people, slowly - but it does. Don't slow the process by enveloping it in insults and condescending remarks. There is a path, a narrow one. Even if some of us are very sure that we're on it, let's be even more sure that our example of living the Gospel invites many more to join the long walk...
Matt youre a charming fun guy. So glad you are reaching out to a protestant theologian. Your show is great keep it that way by not chasing the controversies let some one go down that rabbit hole. Stay positive and encouraging like Philippians 4:8. God bless bro!!!
I have watched Christian-Atheist debates for many years, and I have never come across a single atheistic argument/claim that can withstand scrutiny, especially by someone on the level of intellect of a William Lane Craig! If someone does not believe in God, that has nothing to do with the evidence, only his presuppositions and a priori assumptions which underlie his worldview.
I`ll tell you one of the biggest problems I`m having right now. When I see Hyenas ripping apart wildebeest alive, invariably starting at the hind, it really makes me think "Did God intend that to be?" I mean, isn`t it awful barbaric in our eyes? and yet God made it that way. I mean, I`m not even saying it`s an evil, it isn`t, it`s just mercilessly brutal. It`s so hard to reconcile a tender, merciful and loving God with the God who created the Hyena to do that.
these are called questions of Theodicy . they are not easy . and yet man would be totally insufferable if he did not suffer. we have an excellent chance to show love in action and manifest divine love to those in pain NOW .
The hyena ripping apart the wikdebeest is a result of the fall of man. Before the fall, in the Garden if Eden. Creation enjoyed a different metaphysical, ontological status. All animals were subordinate to man. The lion and the deer walked beside each other. The consumption of meat was nonexistent. In short the predator/prey relationship we observe now is a result of the corruption of sin.
@@megajoseesoj7578 Absolute rubbish. You`re telling me that a tiger, with it`s immense strength, razor sharp teeth and claws chewed the cud? Give me a break, and stop showing Christians to be foolish before the whole world.
@@megajoseesoj7578 So God said "Do as I say, or I will make animals maim, kill and eat each other slowly, not sparing the young or the weak"? What a terrible thing to do. And why should humans bear that responsibility? And why let it continue? Obviously, we're not all going to care about "sins" in Christianity. What choice did the animals have? Why let them feel pain and fear if their lives suck because of us?
One of these days, WLC will explain in great depth his exact issues with Thomas Aquinas. Today was not that day :/ Also Matt, I'm surprised that you didn't push back more when WLC supported Nominalism. Even in the protestant world, many people disagree with WLC on this point (Dallas Willard would be one for example).
GP Moreland, who WLC wrote FfCW with, is a great defender of Aristotelian realism. In fact, in FfCW, the chapter on universals is very clearly soft-realist.
I liked how you subtly touched on theological differences between Catholics and Evangelicals without being in-your-face about it. You set a good example, Matt. Come to Auburn, AL and have a beer with us sometime! 😉
The, " I just believe in one God LESS than you!" canard should always and everywhere be answered first with, "Well, there are ALWAYS more wrong answers to a question than the correct one. In fact, infinitely more." Then the believer should start with his evidence for why his answer is the CORRECT answer in the sea of error.
Dr William Lane Craig was instrumental in my journey back to the faith.
Says old fedora atheist
@@debaterofeverythingpresent2775 If it's surprisingly bearable, then it doesn't make sense to call it unbearable in the first place.
WLC ,WLC ,WLC Booo yea.
Me too!! ❤️❤️
Me too!!
Dr. Craig is such a tender, humble, and gentle man, besides of course being an astonishing intellectual asset to the Christian faith. What a gift to the Church.
@@TheRomanCatholicChurch How?
@@TheRomanCatholicChurch Like?
Lol..Wich church?,
what you are over looking is the fact Gods Holy Spirit is in this man doing most of this.
@@kronos01fulmere christianity. Right?
I love seeing christians from different denominations just chillin and hanging out without being all hateful to each other omggg
As much as I delight in those who look to Christ seeking unity (as Christ prayed for Himself), the Catholic faith is not a 'denomination' 'within' Christianity. It is Christianity. It was started by Jesus, not a mere man, and is that which St. Jude called in his Epistle, "the faith once for all delivered to the saints."
Not only is it's obviously so, but no other 'denomination' even points you to history to verify such. Just like no church even claims to be the church Christ founded on Peter ("Thou art Rock [Petros] and upon this rock [petra] I will build my church"), as the Catholic Church alone does.
Ave Christus Rex no...it’s Not. I don’t know how Catholics go back and claim that status. Sooo many man made traditions and doctrines and beliefs in the Catholic Church it’s sad
@@asmallfarmhomestead3657 What do you mean by manmade? There are traditions we believe came from the apostles, who are men. There are traditions that we believe came from God, that is, Jesus. There are traditions passed on, or if not taught, at least witnessed to, in Scripture. There are also traditions gathered over time as people found maturer and maturer, God-honoring ways to worship God, such as the tradition of churches, or buildings for worship made specifically for God and worship.
Don't just repeat the 'muh traditions of men' mantra. Jesus only ever taught against traditions which you give forth to the detriment of keeping God's. E.g., the commandment says, "Honor your father and mother," yet they made up a law saying that when someone helps their parents, it is gratuitous, a gift, and thus not your duty. That's completely stripping away one's ability to keep the commandment of God.
No Catholic tradition contradicts any of God's commandments.
Ave Christus Rex doctrines of men rather than of God....such as the sinless Mary
@@asmallfarmhomestead3657 Well all doctrine is taught through men, but which ones come from God or not: how does the sinlessness of the new Eve contradict God in any way?
I'm Brazilian catholic and I admire Dr. Craig and this channel. Very good, Matt!
What a bloody honor to interview the great WLC. A question for you ... When did you first hear about Dr. William Lane Craig?
Hey Matt. 🙂 I first found William Lane Craig on RUclips about 12 years ago when was I skeptical about the existence of God and looking for debates between Theists and Atheists about this.
His Kalam Cosmological Argument in particular had a huge impact on me.
After becoming persuaded by the evidence for the existence of God, I looked into research about the Resurrection of Jesus from Gary Habermas, Mike Licona and William Lane Craig.
The evidence we have for the Resurrection convinced me and I am now a Christian since 2017. 😊
Faithful Catholic here saying that - without WLC I wouldn't even have been a Christian! A fountain of knowledge. His sharp debating reignited a spark in me that I forgot was lit ages ago. Supreme scholar, master apologist and always a gentleman. I don't wear a hat, but if I did, it would always be off in front of this man. Looking forward to this one!
About 7-8 years ago when I was 18. He supported my faith with his debates and got me interested in philosophy. Im now doing a philosophy masters degree.
I think it was the Christopher Hitchens’ debate - now I’ve read a lot of his stuff!
I found him through Bishop Barron’s RUclips conversation with him.
Protestant and Catholic coming together to show how much we have in common. WLC and Matt thank you
I am Catholic and admire William Craig. He has helped strengthen my faith
God forever bless Dr. William Lane Craig. After watching him during a debate in middle school, I began the process of ditching forever the darkness of atheism.
In what way is atheism "darkness"? I define atheism as the position of suspending acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones. Wouldn't you agree?
@@G8rfan61 What you call atheism is by definition agnosticism, which within degrees is a rational position to take. As a permanent position, it is more flawed than its counterparts.
@@myutubechannel_nr1 Your argument is a pure strawman. I'm Christian and run in Christian circles, and your argument leaves well over 99% of the Christian position on the matter.
@@G8rfan61 That's agnosticism
My first journey into Christianity definitely started with that legendary debate between Hitchens and Craig. That debate really challenged me to question why I believe what I believe. Many years later I would eventually come to faith but it definitely started with this debate.
As a devout Catholic, I have the utmost respect for William Lane Craig. After watching this video, I have a newfound respect (hardly thought that possible considering my admiration and respect for him already) for Matt Fradd. He is brilliant in that he was so incredibly polite and yet never once capitulated his truly heartfelt Catholic faith. God bless both of these honorable men.
I'm Catholic and Dr Craig was the first Christian apologist I really listened to, and his logic and clarity really influenced me in reverting to the faith. When I eventually discovered Aquinas everything clicked into place for me intellectually, and as I've grown in knowledge a little of the faith and theology there are areas where I don't agree with Dr Craig, but I still think he is a fantastic apologist and a lovely man, and I'm always keen to his arguments. Also the level of abuse he has taken as the foremost exponent of the hated Kalam argument speaks volumes both for his own integrity and for the lack of class (and substantive arguments) of those who attack him.
What a treat for the morning of a day off from work! I love conversations like this! I just came into the Catholic Church a little over two years ago from being a “none.” Prior to becoming Catholic, I had not a clue that there was any difference between Christians. I really think we all need to stick together and support one another because the secular world will attack us equally. Conversations like this help!
@Max Wylde Too bad Mormons are spreading a completely fallacious doctrine filled with heresies. Same goes with Catholicism and every other denomination. These religions have strayed away from the word of God and implemented their own interpretations and beliefs , added to the text and or taken away from it in order to frame their own doctrines.
Congratulations, you can help weed out the paedos.
@@christsawakening9702Actually, the catholic Church has shown a humility (especially in the last couple of centuries) in regards to accepting the scientific advancements. It's shown over the last millenia that reason and faith are not mutually exclusive, and that reason based in faith is a powerful tool for guiding people to God, deepening the meaning of the scriptures, and translating the Word into something that feels relevant to the modern age. The Catholic theology, I believe, is the most complete. When science showed that certain interpretations of scripture were false (we can use evolution as an example, as well as the earth-centric view of the cosmos), the interpretations of the scripture had to change. But God's first and final presence, his omnipotence, his omniscience, his justice, love, wrath, mercy, and forgiveness haven't changed at all. The entire story of the Bible with climaxed with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ hasn't changed. This is still central to the doctrine of Catholicism. What in particular are you opposed to?
@@BrandonMather8 My advice leave them be. Satan "tortured me", most likely I tortured myself because I let myself fall into the cirlce of doubt and questioning everything. Just like you said with the basics and the center/foundation of the Catholic Chruch and what we as catholics/christians spin around, hold on to as most and only important. You will say that the early, first churches were catholic and the eucharist they obeyed, is the same as we have today - body and blood of Jesus Christ and you will find and explain more than dozen of scripture evidence and then you will explain them why the authority of the Chruch metters and when Paul said to Timothy that all Scripture is inspired, but also said that Timothy hangs on and passes on the words he SAID, then you will explain the Mary and the saints thing, then the sacraments and in the end probably how Sola Scriptura theory "kills" it self. AND THEN they will find EVERY OTHER SCRIPTURE BASED COUNTER VERSE. Also most of them will not spend any minute trying to hear what you/we are saying and why is it like the things I wrote above. AND THEN they will call you heretic INSTEAD of WE TOGETHER AS CHRISTIANS!?!?!?!?!?! LOVE NOT JUST OTHER CHRISTIANS, BUT EEEEEEVEEEEERYBODY AND INSTEAD OF GOING OUT (or starting at your own family/neighbourhood/school/work etc.) TO OTHER "FAITHS/RELIGIONS" WHAT WE DO????? WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WE ALREADY HAVE AGREED ON. CHRIST RESSURECTED, HE IS THE ONLY SAVIOUR, WE ARE GOING TO HIM, HOLY SPIRIT GUIDES US AND IT IS INSIDE OF US. BUT NOOOOO "WE MUST ARGUE, WE MUST FIGHT" WHEN THERE IS SOOOOOOO MUCH PEOPLE THAT NEEEEEEVER AND I SAY NEVEEEEER HEARD OR DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT JESUS AT ALLLLLLL!!!!!!!! PEOPLEEEE, BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST, IN WHO? THAT'S RIGHT IN CHRIST!! PLEAAAASE I BEG YOU FOR THE SAKE OF US ALL AND THE PEOPLE THAT REALLY NEED SALVATION STOOP ARGUING AND HATING/ATTACKING/ACCUSING BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT WONT TO UNDERSTAND OUR PERSPECTIVE (the main foundation like I wrote already is the same!!!!!) THEN DONT HATE OR CALL BLASPHEMY OR HERESY.
You know who laughs at us? The devil, the true enemy, like that scene in The Avengers (first part) when they all get into an argument because Loki tricked them. The same thing the devil is doing to us.... How can you not seeeee??????????? What did Paul said about Love, even if he had all the gifts of The Holy Spirit and if he didn't have love, he would be nothing.
Sorry for the caps, but pleaseeee I pray stop it once and for all and focus TOGETHER IN LOVE on to a real enemy.
God bless all 🤍
I didn’t know there was a difference either!! I thought Catholics were just other Christians lol
So exciting to find this interview. My husband introduced me to William Lane Craig. He brought my husband to Belief in God and Christianity. My son’s middle name is Craig for that reason :)
I know this comment is a little older but that is absolutely lovely. Thank you for your encouraging attitude!
As a Catholic I have read and respected Dr. Craig. A fine Christian man and my brother in Christ!!!
First heard of WLC from the Shapiro interview. Thanks for sharing this interview, Matt! 🙌🏼
Episcopalian here. Looking to jump ship to something more doctrinally grounded. Pints with Aquinas is certainly helping me come to that switch.
Orthodox or Catholicism mate. I'm the latter myself, but both are more grounded than the other demoninations.
Did you convert?
Thanks for not falling for the bologna advice of Catholics who wanted you to turn this into a rivalry debate between Catholicism and Protestantism! I learned a lot from this show because of it.
Yes, quite right, that's right, (my goodness use your real name you are with brothers and sisters.) We should not be arguing with each other but joining to argue that killing innocent babies in their mother's womb is murder as that godless individuals in our society are getting away with murder while we argue doctrine, when we have secured the mother's womb to make it a safe place for the gift that God has given, then we can argue doctrine.
@@sarahclark5447 I am on RUclips which is not limited to Christian brethren. We all have our ways of staying as safe as we can online. I believe you are correct that all Christians must unite to battle our common enemy. Doctrine is important and has it's place so long as we never forget we are living in the world ruled by dark forces that seek to keep Jesus Christ from everyone.
Always remember The WORD is PURE , it’s people who are impure . That’s why I follow Jesus, not a church ! IMHO. God bless
I wish he would have. The best way to have Cathalics switch is talk about the evidence.
@@jwatson181 Funny, the evidence lead me in the opposite direction.
Protestants who act like you often remind me of the atheist sophisters like Christopher Hitchens.
I really like WLC. I'm not a theist, but am currently trying to study him. I just read On Guard.
Definitely look up Edward Feser.
@@KurtGodel432 He's on my list for sure.
1 year later.. how’s your study going?
What did you think of On Guard, presuming you finished it 😃
His Debate with Hitchens was Epic !!.. WLC did a great job
Matt, I just came across your channel this week. Theologically, I'm a something of a "reformedish" Baptist, but I appreciate your content and your heart which is evident in your videos. Grace and peace to you, brother.
I am always so amazed at how much joy Dr Craig exudes !
Loved this discussion! Watching WLC in a debate was my first experience with apologetics and he impressed me very much. Regarding the question what can Catholics learn from Protestants, what I admire most about Protestants, especially Evangelicals, is they are not shy about sharing their faith anyone. We Catholics can learn a lot from them.
I’m glad Dr Craig mentioned Dr Alex Pruss. He’s a tour de force! He’s also a fellow Catholic! I highly recommend his work. He’s got a great article on the Leibnizian Contingency Argument in the ‘Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.’
Great role modeling for how faithful Christians can find common ground with each other in ways that strengthen the faith, respecting differences in perspective. Admirable. The Devil loves to focus on what divides. Well done, gentlemen!
There is such a beautiful concordance between Evangelical and Catholic Christian’s
This was very edifying in many ways. Thank you to both of you for having such a charitable conversation.
"You're only an atheist because you were born in Portland, Oregon" 😂 👌
I was born in Portland, Oregon. O.o
I was born in Eugene, which is just Portland Oregon Suburbia.
😂
Dr.William Lane Craig, you are the best! What an impossibly good interlocutor! Such a deep respect for others beliefs, such a calm and collected mannerism, such an open and perspicacious mind! God bless you, my brother, from a catholic to you
What a wonderful person Dr. Craig is. I have watched many of his debates and enjoy him everytime. God bless you, Dr. Craig and God bless you, Matt Fradd.
I love Dr. William Lane Craig. He holds to the faith. That we can stand united on our shared Christianity is where we should make our stand.
Though your respect for your guest is apparent, I'm so glad you challenged him on the "celibacy of priests is an undue burden" idea. You saw him consider it again as soon as you asked about the Episcopal communities, but hearing you imply "Your argument says all men are pedophiles and marriage directs that energy elsewhere" almost immediately changed his thinking. Well done.
Matt... Your defence of celibate priests was spot on👏👏👏... You have moved up in position in my Catholic RUclips list!!!
Did my best, thanks.
💯 well done Matt!
I've started looking at celibacy in a little different way. The crisis isn't because celibacy has caused un-satiated desire to explode in these abusers. That's never been the problem. The abuse crisis is because Bishops and clergy don't believe in the value of celibacy. Witness Cardinal Cupich talking at the Bishops conference about consensual relationships being handled separately. If the Cardinals don't expect the priests to live celibacy, the gift is thrown away already.
@@deaconken3752 if celibacy is relaxed... there is a serious risk of people viewing priesthood as a lucrative profession rather than a vocation... Especially in developing nations like mine...🙁
Michael A Ratnam I’m not necessarily advocating for married priests. The argument was celibacy leads to abuse. No, it’s the current disregard for vows made by priests and then bishops accepting “consensual” relationships that create the conditions for abuse.
As for clergy getting rich, have you followed the money corruption by bishops? Just normal priests live pretty good right now, honestly.
The change with heterosexual married clergy is they will want to leave an inheritance. But even so, will they accumulate more than say a teacher?
I respect the both of you tremendously. WLC is a legend but you conducted yourself quite well in this interview.
I attempt to engage in discussion with those differing from the Faith in this same manner. We need everyone wishing to engage in Catholic Apologetics to watch how y’all engage one another.
Civility is paramount to success.
Catholic here and absolutely love Dr Craig. A hero in my mind.
Cant wait for this one. It premieres on my birthday...! Thanks for the gift Matt. I knew you would be thinking of me.
Happy belated birthday, O Adonai.
@@timothyfreeman97 thank you.
I differ theologically with Dr. Craig, but I believe his work is immensely valuable in the face of growing secularism. Christianity needs to reclaim our vigorous intellectual tradition, in both the Catholic and Protestant congregations!
And Orthodox!
@@anahata3478 But most of today is radical secularism, which is a religious worldview in itself. Key: It is very important how you define 'separation of church and state (found nowhere in the Constitution)
You could take Joe Rogan
intellectually
You could but please, don't. We love you. :D
@J w I set up the following Reddit thread, a while back, to help facilitate that very desire. Go here and follow the instructions (pass this on):
*William Lane Craig on the Joe Rogan Experience:* www.reddit.com/r/ReasonableFaith/comments/bdis1w/william_lane_craig_on_the_joe_rogan_experience/
@@samaldridge5283 Rogan is an intellectual lightweight.
Hahaha on DMT.
My only critique is that this was far too short. Really good stuff, Matt.
Coming from a Presbyterian, this was a fantastic interview. Keep up the good work.
Hey! You preached at the church I attend! Cool to see you here :)
Soli Deo Gloria!
As a rising tide lifts all boats so too does Dr Craig's witness lift all Christians. Great Job, Mr Fradd.
Dedicated Protestant, love Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. I have more than one Thomas Aquinas necklaces. Just subscribed. Watching this channel makes me want to get a devout Catholic and Orthodox friend 😂
It's good to see a Protestant who isn't just running around yelling nonsense and trying to make claims about Catholics
Hearing Craig respond to all the atheist arguments from 48:30 on is GOLD.
This man is a real truth seeker!!
One of my favorite episodes to rewatch, I must listen to it at least once every few months. Would be wonderful if you could bring Dr. Craig on again
Thanks for that teaser. I clicked so fast on the picture. Now my little happiness for the end of the night has just vanished.
Feeling better now. Thanks
@@Dr_TwIzTeD you're loved more than you'll ever. Thanks for existing. Jesus loves you.
There was a case of an amputated leg being healed and I specifically remembered it because it got one atheist doctor whose specialized in those things convert after he had said that's the only thing that would convert him. And he definitely did not expect a case like that...
this is insane to me haha we literally study William Lane Craig's Kalam argument in my Philosophy, Ethics, and Religion course at college never expected i'd find an episode of him on pints with aquinas
I got to meet him earlier this year (pre-COVID-19 breakout) and he signed my Bible. Such a nice man. Love hearing him make a case for our faith. Wonderful interview. Thank you for your content.
Love Dr. Craig for his ability to brilliantly defend Christianity! Dr. Craig is a true warrior of God whom has provided the answers to help gird the attacks of the evil one! God bless Dr. Craig!
I have watched Dr. William Craig's debate against prominent atheists of the likes of Christopher Hitchens. So far he is superb in presenting and defending the theistic arguments for the existence of God and the foundation of the Christian religion. I hope he will continue his journey and arrive at the fullness of the Catholic faith.
He’s a forever Protestant through and through.
I hadn't heard this argument against the hiddenness of God before, and the recommendation to read Pascal's book is most welcome. Thank you for the great interview.
What a phenomenal chat! I really love the questions and, of course, WLC's answers. Incredible man, and truly a blessing to the faith.
So proud of you Matt for backing up the church’s stand on celibacy
WLC is so gosh darn likeable. He’s gracious and understanding and articulates things well. This Catholic is really appreciative of men like WLC for helping me to deepen my faith.
Thank you for the interview. He's the best Christian apologist.
El mejor apologista cristiano que tenemos. Felicidades por tan rica entrevista de alto nivel. Bendiciones
@@jarlaxledaerthe4045
Can you defend your position? If not, who is the best?
@@jarlaxledaerthe4045
Yes I did read it. Now, can you defend your position? And if you can't, then who is the best defender of YOUR position? (Perhaps I was unclear previously?)
@@jarlaxledaerthe4045
Hm. Looks like we've got an elephant hurler here. I'll count to 3...
*P1:* I think you are mostly operating on old info. Much has changed in recent years, and scoffers such as yourself are running out of excuses... As for all your other unsubstantiated claims, please. You have no argument.
*P2:* Clearly not factual? Based upon what assumptions? (Most of your assumptions regarding your skepticism - I've little doubt is faulty and likely inconsistent.) Also, such a shame that you don't apply the same standards to your own faith or to anything else from antiquity for that matter. Perhaps this is because you've got a philosophical bias? Jar, don't you believe that you are a talking animal? More importantly, are you a good person? Do you believe that men ought to strive to be good? If you were to judge yourself according to the standard presented in The 10 Commandments of Exodus 20, would you be innocent or guilty?
*P3:* What vague prophecies? Some are vague! Some are not... Still, since it is obvious that you are not willing to consider the Christian faith, perhaps you can tell me about your own position and explain why it is that I should believe whatever it is that you do? _Maybe that would be more productive?_ If everyone you knew lived according to Judeo-Christian principles, would that make the world a better or worse place?
@@jarlaxledaerthe4045
*P1:* I did not see any kind of compelling or historical, fact based argument of any kind. I think that you are either badly misinformed, delusional or simply a liar.
*P2:* If you believe that Big Bang cosmology, abiogenesis, or Darwinian mythology are factual, then you're completely insane and need someone to challenge you regarding the facts of empirical science!
Also, IF the first verse of the Bible is true, nothing else in the Bible is impossible. Your conclusion is a non-sequitur. But then, if there is no God, then there is no reason for you to be an apologist for your own position - which is no doubt something you couldn't do anyhow.
*P3:* None of those things are condone or advocated for in any way in the Bible. But clearly you do believe in objective moral values and duties - that are also timeless! However, that is not possible if what YOU believe is true! I'm afraid that you are being neither rational nor consistent in your line of reasoning.
@@jarlaxledaerthe4045
You literally just lied and then fled the scene! [smh]
While we can't ignore biblical differences I love the spirit of this conversation. Thanks so much for this discussion. We need a lot more of this
Dr. Craig: -“ I haven’t heard these yet.”
Matt: “Ooohh yes you have!”
I almost fell off my chair laughing
What a great interview. Mr. Fradd, you did what an interviewer is supposed to do: you brought out the best in the interviewee. I appreciate the cordial discussions as well.
Mr Craig is a gift from God. But I spent my time around a few different large protestant churches, Willow Creek being one of them and even married pastors will fall into patterns of sexual misconduct of all shapes and sizes. Working in leadership positions across a number of protestant churches before returning to catholicism a common thread I saw was that being a pastor or preacher is always at odds with your responsibilities as a husband and father. I never saw a pastor who was able to balance all 3. While working in the catholic church, I have seen much greater harmony with clerics and priests because they don't struggle those opposing forces. The two big things that drew me back into catholicism is the very clear and unified sexual ethic, and the clerical order as a whole.
Not a good argument. First of all, any anecdotical argument is fallacious. I easily can say I know pastors that balance life and their calling very well.
Second, your subjective opinion is irrelevant to theological issues. God clearly states in the Bible that there can be priests with wives. EVEN if celibacy is preferred, you cannot be against the very words of God. Priests should marry if they want to do it.
@@youtubecom5478 Is the Bible infallible?
@@noescape2108 Some say it is infallible, but the concept seems to be problematic. Some say it is "inerrant", which is logically possible and plausible. Others say it is neither.
Either way, the issue here is that, to build a theological case for celibacy, you necessarily need to start with the two options given in the Bible. In order to ignore the marriage option...
a) You would have to dismiss the books that mention the "marriage" option and consider those Bible books as apocryphal, which is anti-Catholic.
b) You would have to dismiss that specific verses and accept the rest of the text, which is arbitrary.
@@youtubecom5478 , you're very logically rigorous, but I think you're missing an important nuance here (that Matt Fradd hit on): the difference between doctrine and discipline. Priestly celibacy is a discipline in the Latin Rite (with limited exceptions for some convert priests), which is subject to change by decree coming from authority (The Church). There is a hierarchy of church law and obedience to Christ (to include the body of Christ / His Church) trumps flexible options described in scripture. Similar to how state laws can never trump the federal constitution.
Note1: the Catholic Church doesn't derive its authority from scripture, it derives its authority from Jesus Christ (which is inerrantly described in scripture, Matt 16:19). Reminder, the Catholic Church assembled the various books of the bible around the 4th and 5th centuries.
Note2: Catholic Permanent Deacons are married men.
@@jonathanbourret2968 Yeah well authority is the crux of the matter and where you place it. But even if THEE CHURCH gets its authority from Jesus Christ, the only reason that it does is because the scriptures say so.
This is of course, if we assume the interpretation of scripture in regards to Peter and a catholic conceptualization of the church.
It’s only when you understand the True God of the Bible and the True Gospel is where you will fall to your knees/face in worship/admiration/love/repentance!
God Bless these two men. Awesome show Matt. Thank you!
Dr. William Lane Craig I have so much respect for! Thank You for sharing your knowledge… And Matt I appreciate you putting these videos and having great convos with my like minded Protestants.
I think that your brief criticism of Anglicanism is well deserved. My tradition has taken a "why not?" approach to everything.
It’s always good to see two different schools of thought come together and reason as one!
Phew, it got a little tense at the end with WLC trying to blame celibacy for the sexual abuses. You did a good job responding and bringing up the Anglican Church. Next time bring up the John Jay Report and how Priests have lower percentages of abuses when compared to Pastors, Teachers and even in the general US population
power50001562 I was a little 🤨 and 😕when that came up too. But Matt responded beautifully and then I was 😀.
Celibacy has nothing to do with child abuse.
Right. Just look at Islam.
power50001562 Celibacy isn’t the issue, the issue is that it’s forced or “mandatory celibacy” it’s found nowhere in scripture, and early Roman Catholic Priest actually could marry 🤷🏽♂️
@@justchilling704 Yes, flatheads, the Church that has been around for more than 2000 years with a robust theological and philosophical tradition somehow missed that detail, which, also somehow, a teenager with a RUclips account managed to find.
When I was a teenager I formulated a version of Pascal's wager and determined a death with belief is objectively better than a death without. But beliefs don't change reality, and I don't want to be delusional. Ends up that as GOD (I Am That I AM) is the basis of reality I have been irresistibly drawn in to the revelation of the scriptures. Dr. Craig's books and argumentation has been very instrumental for me.
Tremendously good interview, Matt.
Two beautiful souls. God bless them🙏
I love what Dr. WLC had to say about the genetic fallacy.
Dr William Lane Craig's take on Dr. Hawking and his embrace of ontological pluralism in the model dependent reality is a great service to Christianity. I'm very grateful for his service to the community.
Interesting, the mini-discussion about celibacy kind of shows the opposing paradigms of Catholicism vs. Protestantism. The Protestant preacher is sort of a model of Christlike living, whereas the priest performs sacraments In Persona Christi, and priestly celibacy is sort of the priests bearing witness with his own body by conforming to the same celibacy of Christ, and to the fact that in Christ's Kingdom we neither marry nor are given in marriage.
@Tiger wasn't always the case in the eastern church. To this day for example, bishops may not marry and priests are forced to practice some periods of sexual abstinence
First of all Matt, I'd like to commend you on the wonderful job you did in interviewing Dr. Craig. Most of what we see of Dr. Craig on the internet involves his participation in highly structured debates. It was nice to see him in a more informal setting where his audience is afforded an opportunity to gain insight into Dr. Craig as a person. He seems like a really sincere and nice guy.
I'm a Catholic who's been following Dr. Craig for about 15 years. He's largely responsible for my return to the Church and the fortification of my faith. I am forever thankful to him for that.
Again, great work Matt. You've just gained an additional follower.
Great talk. Wish you would have closed in prayer.
Id like to add that, for both Catholics and Protestants, the Old Testament needs to play a far greater role in Catechesis, apologetics, etc. A major stumbling block, for many, exists in being able to properly defend the more harsh pronouncements in books like Leviticus. An opponent simply stating provocative portions of mosaic law makes for such effective rhetoric that I've seen nearly all Atheistic debaters (Hitchens, Dawkins, Shermer, etc) resort to it when cornered. I know for certain we lose a lot of young people (myself included) because our formation didn't properly prepare us for the assaults of atheists in college who bring up belittling scripture versus about not wearing mixed fabrics, piercing your slaves ear, or slaughtering every Amalakite man woman and child (among MANY others). It's made the German bishops uncomfortable enough to suggest jettisoning the Old Testament altogether. To me it seems that crafting a coherent defense of the O.T might be a place where Catholics, Protestants, and even Jews can work together.
A great book for that which comes at the issue in keeping with Catholic Tradition is called "The Dark Passages of the Bible" by Dr. Matthew Ramage www.amazon.com/Dark-Passages-Bible-Engaging-Scripture/dp/0813221560
Dr.Michael S.Heiser does this on his videos as well as Paul Copan's book : Is God a moral Monster!
I am 3 years late but lovely interview Matt. Cheers. I belly laughed a few times at both you and your guest's remarks. The "You're only an atheist because you were raised in Portland, Oregon" was good and Dr Bill's comment about how God could let someone hit themselves in the thumb with a hammer was classic. Again, lovely. Thank you.
Love this man!
As I get to the end of the interview, I reckon it is one of the best I've ever seen.
Amazing man with admirable debate skills that looks a lot like David Lee Roth
I have waited for so long to listen to this. Thank you for the interview.
One could not ask for a better birthday present!
Im so grateful we have these conversations recorded which will last (at least I hope) even beyond our own lifetimes and the lifetimes of persons such as WLC - and Matt Fradd!
In Aquinas's "Contra Gentiles" he describes how to talk to or debate people outside the Catholic faith. With Jews you debate using the Old Testament. With Muslims, in Aquinas's day you could debate philosophy. The reason why a Christian debating an atheist is so difficult is because the Christian tries to prove his argument using only the Bible. We know the Bible is a valid thing, but it is not helpful when debating an atheist.
The sound quality is amazing!
When I grow up I want to be William Craig
When he grows up he needs to join reality and stop promoting mythology.
@@parkjammer
Atheism = naturalism = mythology. Tell me your 'story' of origins, meaning, morality, and destiny! _What do you believe and why?_
Great interview! I wish you got more into the philosophical arguments for the finitude of the past.
Yeah, me too. It was only after the interview that I realized we never got around to it.
@@pintswithaquinas, next time perhaps! =)
Ed Feser combox squad. 👀
Hey John, if you want to be aware of some of the arguments you can make to prove that an infinite past is impossible therefore proving that a finite past is then the only rational conclusion, I can let you know some arguments that make that case:
The most popular approach I have seen used to show this is to illistrate how it is mathematically impossible to "have" an infinite number of anything as it causes impossible outcomes. Problems with this mathematicaly will typically get illustrated by discussing scenarios like a library with an infinite number of red and blue books. If you take out all the red books how many blue books are left? An infinite amount. How many red books did you take? An infinite amount. If you put the red books back would you double the amount of books in the library? No, because it would still be infinite.
You see the idea of already having an infinite of something is problematic the more you think of it mathematically.
Now you can say, well dont you claim that you can have the future go on for an infinite amount of time? Yes, the difference is we do not claim to have passed an infinite amount of time or in the scenario it would be the equivalent of saying we no longer have possesion of an infinite amount of books but the amount of finite books we do have are being added to continually without end. Therefore mathematically we are still working with finite numbers and dont run into impossible conclusions and outcomes. This is what reality and logic leads us to conclude.
My personal issue with an infinite regression (tho I have never seen anyone use this argument) is the problem of causation. We consider the future to be potentialy infinite. Even if we are not here, reality would continue. What we do today will affect the future as it continues in time. Well if an infinite regression is possible and the past is also ongoing and unending then it must be possible in an infinite regression to continue to have new causes in the unending past. Any new cause should still be able to effect all future events in the same timeline but that goes against what we experience as true.
Because it seems that we have a stable reality in the sense we do not witness our reality changing continually in this manner it would suggest that we have a stable finite past instead of unstable ever changing infinite past.
My favorite and most easily understood response to the impossibility of an infinite past is the following argument I have heard Frank Turek use:
If our past is infinite we would never reach the present or any finite point in time because there would have to be an infinite amount of days that are required to pass before we get there which is impossible.
The reason you can have an infinite future is because there is no reference to a finite end. The moment you mention a point in the future there has to be a finite amount of days to get there to actualize it.
Infinite has no end point.
We have to understand that time goes from past to present. To traverse through time and arrive at any finite point you must admit to a finite amount of days to get there.
All of these arguments and many more like them show that our past can not be infinite and therefore must be finite. Therefore "time" had a begining.
Now if "time" had a begining then based on Einstein's theory of relativity which shows that space matter and "time" are co relative (meaning they came into existence together) then we can safely conclude that space, time, and matter all had a begining.
So is the past infinite or finite? Finite.
Does the science back this up with what we now know about our universe? Yes.
“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”
- Alexander Vilenkin
Q and A on this topic with Frank Turek:
ruclips.net/video/sjZy3U58fEY/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/0_EL2tEBGbI/видео.html
@@wheretruthleads Re: "If our past is infinite we would never reach the present or any finite point in time because there would have to be an infinite amount of days that are required to pass before we get there ..."
The key is that an *actually existing infinite* number of days is not required to reach today, since only 1 moment ever occurs at a time (on presentism). I do think arguments against the infinity of the past work if B theory is true (since then the past is an actual infinite). But on presentism (where only the NOW of time exists), I don't see how any of the descriptions like Hilbert's Hotel and others apply to the universe (since they all require the actual infinite to be instantiated all at once), but the universe isn't like that.
Curious to hear your thoughts.
WLC is a great treasure for Christians of all stripes.
How can you not like WLC....such a winsome guy
I am a practicing Catholic and have great admiration and respect for Dr Craig and his work. He is my go to for philosophy/theology, a great Christian thinker.
I partially agree with Dr Craig about celibate priests. I affirm that celibacy (or rather the constant decision to live chastely) is an important aspect of priesthood. But should it be a necessary condition for priesthood, strictly speaking? Allowing married priests in my mind would not only show movement towards dealing with sexual related problems, (not that celibacy is the cause) but at the same time it would reaffirm the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.
I am not saying that we abolish celibacy for priests strictly speaking, but having the option open may well be beneficial. I may be wrong here but even some of the apostles were married and a strong case can be made.
Additionally is celibacy the right term to use?
Because a person can be celibate by nature or accident. Maybe a better way to refer to it is choosing to live chastely or something like that. Furthermore, it is not only priests who are called to live chastely but even married couples are too. For it is certainly possible to get drunk on your on wine.
I recognise that there is also the issue practicality regarding married priests, but I think those kinds of issues can easily be resolved.
It seems to me it is an issue worth looking into.
Great show Matt! How unfortunate that it only went on for an hour :/. I'm sure there were legitimate reasons why it was so but I was hoping that it would fill my whole afternoon with theology and philosophy. Nevertheless I did enjoy it and you certainly carried yourself well here. Us catholics can be proud of your openness towards dialogue and defense of celibacy alike. I would've like to hear WLC talk more on the subject of Catholic-Protestant relations, differences and possible bridges to build between us.
His calm and confident demeanor supported by your hosting prowess would be a great combination for such a dialogue to exist. However in his eagerness to not expand the divide between Catholics and Protestants, he is a bit too reluctant to engage even in just a "thought-experimentish" exchange. I would agree that we should not cause any additional problems between the groups but I'd also emphasize that if there ever was a time to converse with friendship in mind and fellowship inside the soul- it is now, under the "boot" of modernity that comes for all.
Regarding the Celibacy issue. The level of civility and mutual respect here is to be admired. It is precisely in this manner that we should proceed to engage one another. Ignoring our differences will always be like ignoring a spark near a haystack. Talking about them with love, care and kindness in order to better understand and possibly resolve some, that's the way to go!
For all of us...screeching and spewing hate will only freeze any movement inside the soul. Truth gets to people, slowly - but it does. Don't slow the process by enveloping it in insults and condescending remarks.
There is a path, a narrow one. Even if some of us are very sure that we're on it, let's be even more sure that our example of living the Gospel invites many more to join the long walk...
Matt youre a charming fun guy. So glad you are reaching out to a protestant theologian. Your show is great keep it that way by not chasing the controversies let some one go down that rabbit hole. Stay positive and encouraging like Philippians 4:8. God bless bro!!!
Can you get Fr. Chad Ripperger or Jordan Peterson on the show? I would love to see either, or both, of them.
I have watched Christian-Atheist debates for many years, and I have never come across a single atheistic argument/claim that can withstand scrutiny, especially by someone on the level of intellect of a William Lane Craig! If someone does not believe in God, that has nothing to do with the evidence, only his presuppositions and a priori assumptions which underlie his worldview.
I'm not done with Trent Horn yet! Upload galore
WLC is the top Christian intellectual alive! major reason I came back to the faith.....
WLC is like nucleur warfare for the athest's "knife" in this fight XD
This was great! Love Pints with Aquinas and WIlliam Lane Craig! Both do great things!
I`ll tell you one of the biggest problems I`m having right now. When I see Hyenas ripping apart wildebeest alive, invariably starting at the hind, it really makes me think "Did God intend that to be?" I mean, isn`t it awful barbaric in our eyes? and yet God made it that way. I mean, I`m not even saying it`s an evil, it isn`t, it`s just mercilessly brutal. It`s so hard to reconcile a tender, merciful and loving God with the God who created the Hyena to do that.
these are called questions of Theodicy . they are not easy . and yet man would be totally insufferable if he did not suffer. we have an excellent chance to show love in action and manifest divine love to those in pain NOW .
The hyena ripping apart the wikdebeest is a result of the fall of man. Before the fall, in the Garden if Eden. Creation enjoyed a different metaphysical, ontological status. All animals were subordinate to man. The lion and the deer walked beside each other. The consumption of meat was nonexistent. In short the predator/prey relationship we observe now is a result of the corruption of sin.
@@megajoseesoj7578 Absolute rubbish. You`re telling me that a tiger, with it`s immense strength, razor sharp teeth and claws chewed the cud? Give me a break, and stop showing Christians to be foolish before the whole world.
@@RocketKirchner Was man insufferable before the fall?
@@megajoseesoj7578 So God said "Do as I say, or I will make animals maim, kill and eat each other slowly, not sparing the young or the weak"? What a terrible thing to do. And why should humans bear that responsibility? And why let it continue? Obviously, we're not all going to care about "sins" in Christianity. What choice did the animals have? Why let them feel pain and fear if their lives suck because of us?
Excellent interview! Loved the dialogue!
One of these days, WLC will explain in great depth his exact issues with Thomas Aquinas. Today was not that day :/
Also Matt, I'm surprised that you didn't push back more when WLC supported Nominalism. Even in the protestant world, many people disagree with WLC on this point (Dallas Willard would be one for example).
GP Moreland, who WLC wrote FfCW with, is a great defender of Aristotelian realism. In fact, in FfCW, the chapter on universals is very clearly soft-realist.
Andres Arpi - does WLC provide a meaningful critique of Thomism in that book?
@@ConciseCabbage i have only perused some chapters, friend, so i cant tell you yet.
I liked how you subtly touched on theological differences between Catholics and Evangelicals without being in-your-face about it. You set a good example, Matt. Come to Auburn, AL and have a beer with us sometime! 😉
The, " I just believe in one God LESS than you!" canard should always and everywhere be answered first with, "Well, there are ALWAYS more wrong answers to a question than the correct one. In fact, infinitely more." Then the believer should start with his evidence for why his answer is the CORRECT answer in the sea of error.
And what exactly is this evidence of the existence of a god to which you allude?