William Lane Craig's Backdoor Method for Nonbelievers
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- Started off responding to this article by William Lane Craig, once again dealing with the relationship between God’s revelation in Scripture and our knowledge, including our knowledge of who Christ was (and is). Craig is the primary source for Andy Stanley’s position, by the way, as you will see.
All production and credit belongs to Alpha and Omega Ministries®.
If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/
To you people who were saved through Craig's ministry: Craig did not save you. Your salvation is good but the idea here is the supremacy of the bible. There is no salvation without this. There is no true notion of God without this. If you merely understand that God exists you are not saved. If all Craig gave you was well constructed arguments you are not saved. Only God saves and that by his Spirit and the conviction of your sin and not by rational arguments of his existence.
Amen! This is a lesson I had to learn over the past year. There are some pastors that have been incredibly influential on me, but I eventually learned from their own personal shortcomings that none of them saved me.
It can all be used by God-don't discourage brothers with a different calling. Dr. Craig is a blessing in ways that Dr. White is not, and vice versa. As much as we'd like to have everything black and white, it's just not. Reformed Theology loves categories of absolutely this and absolutely that, and there's very little room for any gray, which begins to affect our thinking in every other area, which brings us to despise Christians of other traditions, even if they are doing good. We begin to think of them as actually doing bad, and working against us, and not on our side. We begin to forget about the battle against the forces of darkness and we turn on ourselves, much the way God would confuse the enemies of the Israelites to fight one another in order that they destroy themselves. Beware these pits that are dug.
Amén! The Gospel saves! No matter how sure someone that Christianity is true, that does not make them a Christian.
WLC is a Philosopher, NOT a Bible Teacher !
Without William Lane Craig I never would have turned from an atheist to a Christian.
Rafael Garcia yeah this guy doesn’t understand.
it wasn't craig that saved you. God did. God may use a fool to save a sinner, but if you wish to know God, you have to trust his word, and craig undermines scripture
hondobondo he never said Craig saved him. And Craig doesn’t undermine the Bible.
Craig became Christian through personal revelation in High School. His apologetics were created after that. Was it Craig's apologetics that made you Christian or was there also personal revelation to build upon?
Great. God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick. Doesnt change the fact that Craigs methodology is completely unbiblical
After listening to Dr. White you now know why W.L.C. will not debate him. WLC is a philosopher NOT a biblical exegete. One thing I TOTALLY agree with Dr. White on; Reformed theology, the sovereign rule and kingship of the Potter to do with his pots as he pleases, is ABSOLUTELY essential in doing any kind of biblical apologetics. God bless you Dr. White
WLC has said in the past that he isnt interested in debating other christians on christian issues because he doesnt find it a major issue. He only debates atheists and generally unbelievers so he can knock some sense in millenials and teens that are impressed by atheist sophistry.
Is there any limit to the idea that god should do as he pleases with his creation? Imagine a god that created humans and put them directly in heaven. Now imagine a god that created humans and put them directly in hell. Are you able to make any distinction between them, or are both scenarios essentially the same?
This is nonsense champ, understand it now, or in the future.
By the way he has a theology PhD under Wolfgang Pannenberg, way a lot better than whites credentials.
Excellent.
Thank you brother I will boast about you on the day of the Lord. You are in my prayers.
That really means nothing because you were predestined to boast about him. Sir, you have no free will.
Boast in The LORD Alone, Brother.
@@jwatson181 nor do You. We were Predestined to be Conformed to the Image of The PREEMINENT CHRIST ampnd Many Brethren. He who sins is a slave of sin! As It IS Written No One Come the The FATHER Except through The SON, and also, No One Come to The SON Unless The FATHER Draws Them nd CHRIST WILL Raise THEM (Us, Elect) Up on the Last Day, Says The SOVEREIGN LORD. Love it or hate it, but You are only Manifesting Your standing bedore GOD. Repent and TRUST CHRIST Alone, not
@@Chirhopher
Brother, God uses His creation to reach His election to make Him known and to establish their faith. I believe the Bible teaches that He has gifted people by the Spirit for the building up of the body of Christ. Ministers of the word about Jesus do so by the grace of God and they will have a reward from God based upon their works in Christ just like us. Everyone has a different gift and God will judge those things. You can learn about this in 1st Corinthians and the gospels. What I said is no offense to God. Thank you for your concern it shows that you are sincere. I hope in the Lord that you grow in knowledge. Read all of 2 Corinthians 1 and see 1 Corinthians it's either chapter 3 or chapter 4. Grace to all in Christ. God bless you.
"just as you did partially understand us-that on the day of our Lord Jesus you will boast of us as we will boast of you."
2 Corinthians 1:14 ESV
@@jwatson181
I agree that I am predestined to exist all by the will of God. I also believe that I have free will and that God predestined the ends by which I now believe in the gospel. I believe that God uses his creation to make Himself known and he creates faith in Jesus through his good news.
Well, they are historically reliable documents about God and copies of his inspired word.
"Though I came into this world helpless and naked, I am its master and God. Who shall dare deny me, for my hand it holds the iron rod. For my stride brings to those beneath me, naught but pain and loss. How then, say you, that he defeats me who hanged upon a cross."
The Modern 2019
Dude, thou haven't exposed anything. Stop picking on Craig. Dr. Craig has lead many unbelievers to Christ! Stop attacking him, and do the same!
This is at best a rant, rather than a helpful reply.
Historically reliable doesn’t mean he doesn’t believe in the Bible. What William lane Craig is saying is it’s logical to believe in the Bible, not that you don’t need it.
obviously bro
With full respect to Dr. White, a man whose life has been in service to the Most High God, but I believe that he is being very harsh to Dr. Craig. I was not always Christian. I was one of many believers to fall under away of Dawkins and his folk because they made sense to me at the time. It wasn't until William Lane Craig came around and started preaching the idea that a God existing isn't as ridiculous as Dawkins led me to believe and that it makes logical sense for there to be a prime mover who began everything on the first place. If it was up to Dr. White telling me to trust in God's sovereignty to save me, I would still be an atheist today. For atheists, approaching them with the Bible will not change them. You have to present philosophical arguments for God's existence so that they are at least comfortable with the idea that it makes logical sense for there to be a God. Only then can they fully understand and come around to the Gospel
Well said.
this "prime mover" concept is from the bible. God says "I am that I am" this is called self-sufficiency, meaning, he is the prime mover. I am as in "I exist and nothing exists apart from me" this is the most basic theological concept in the bible. craig did not give you a philosophical argument. either way, that did not save you. God's spirit saved you, and if his spirit did not save you, you are not saved. apologists like craig have only the most superficial understanding of theological concepts barely sufficient to preach the gospel but not nearly sufficient enough for you to truly know God
That just shows you were never exposed to Covenantal apologetics which prove the truth of Christianity with objective certainty.
Stay true to your own conviction from the Bible while respecting other elect.
Fancy speech and sophistication will not save a person. If you were saved by Dr. Craig's philosophical argumentation then either you weren't really saved, or you are mistaken in how you were saved. And here is how I know: even if a person became immediately convinced of God's existence, they still would not repent and follow Christ. Even the demons believe...and tremble. It takes more than just a head knowledge to be saved. God has to shine upon your heart with the light of Jesus Christ, revealing Christ to you. If you are intellectually convinced, great. That is a good thing. But you have to believe from the heart. And wise arguments and skillful debate cannot cause that. The simple presentation of the Gospel of God and the Holy Spirit moving on one's heart is how a person is saved.
For those insisting on the inerrancy (in its modern interpretation, now often taken to mean every word and statement, however trivial, is without even possibility of error) of the New Testament as the presupposition necessary to accept Christ, think about a few questions: did the Bereans have any of the New Testament scriptures? Let’s go a step further... When Paul was evangelizing to gentiles, who did not even have any the OT or NT, did they have to presuppose OT and NT, concepts they were not even familiar with, were inerrant? How about other evangelists who were not even apostles? Was presupposing the inerrancy of scripture a requirement to spread the message of the good news to the gentile world?
What WLC said was actually obvious. Listen to any of his interviews mentioning this (e.g. on Shapiro). WLC asserts Christ’s resurrection is a historical fact and does not rest on the inerrancy of the New Testament. If one agrees with Christ’s resurrection, for which there is strong historical evidence, then one would then be obligated to consider other things that this man, who rose from the dead, said... which would include Jesus treating the OT as the Word of God.
That’s the simple argument and it’s premise is obvious from an even cursory look at the historic spread of Christianity, or even how most people come to Christ today. Do you think most people hearing the message of the gospel and coming to Christ have a deep conviction about scriptural inerrancy? Think about that for five seconds.
WLC does NOT claim scripture is not inspired or errant (he has a whole series on this). He just says that believing this is not a necessary presupposition for people to hear the message of the gospel and to accept Christ. This is obvious.
White has a bone to pick with WLC. That too, is obvious.
I hold to the Chicago statement, which doesn't seem like what you are criticizing (unless you are intentionally strawmanning the typical inerrancy position), so maybe I'm not the target audience for your questions (White isn't either), but I'll give my answers to your questions.
_"did the Bereans have any of the New Testament scriptures?"_
Maybe. I don't know what was written at that point. It isn't impossible that an early Pauline epistle or an early gospel like Mark was already in circulation.
_"Let’s go a step further... When Paul was evangelizing to gentiles, who did not even have any the OT or NT, did they have to presuppose OT and NT, concepts they were not even familiar with, were inerrant?"_
Honestly, this strikes me as a very poorly thought out question given the sentence immediately prior where you talked about the people of a northern Greek city named Berea (or Beroea). Obviously, Gentiles did have the OT as they were able to search it to see if what Paul was saying was true, contradicting your whole false narrative.
The gentiles of Berea seemed to think that the apostle's claims, if true, would not contradict what God taught in scripture. They didn't judge God's message by what seemed right in their own eyes, but by the very standard God lays out in Deut 13.
_"How about other evangelists who were not even apostles?"_
Deut 13 applies to their teachings as well.
_"Was presupposing the inerrancy of scripture a requirement to spread the message of the good news to the gentile world?"_
It's rather difficult to spread a message that the messenger thinks is false or in error in some way, don't you think? Why do you presuppose that the evangelists thought the message they were spreading was wrong or in error in some way?
_"Do you think most people hearing the message of the gospel and coming to Christ have a deep conviction about scriptural inerrancy?"_
No, I think they are sinners that need to repent of their suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, learn what God has said about himself and receive the discipline and discipleship of the Holy Spirit. Trusting God's word comes from the Holy Spirit's work.
_"White has a bone to pick with WLC. That too, is obvious."_
WCL is on shaky theological grounds on some issues and should spend more time clarifying what he believes. It is right to correct him where he errs. Yet it seems that WLC fanboys would rather defend him at all costs rather than stand up for the Bible where he diverges. Likewise tf White is wrong here, call it out specifically and prove the truth from the Bible.
@@oracleoftroy I asked, “Was presupposing the inerrancy of scripture a requirement to spread the message of the good news to the gentile world.” You answered, “It’s rather difficult to spread a message that the messenger thinks is false or in error in some way.”
Read those two statements back to yourself a few times and I’m sure you’ll have no issue spotting the straw man.
The point made is actually really, really basic. The early Christians, including most of the authors of the NT, clearly did not have the modern canon and therefore, the idea that they believed that believing in the inerrancy of such non-existent canon was vital to one’s salvation is absurd. You can’t possibly be expected to believe in something that you don’t even know will one day exist. To claim otherwise, or to claim that a belief that every word of the NT cannon is inerrant may be a great doctrine, an important one even, but it is not, nor has it ever been, the actual gospel message. The gospel message is this: that we are all sinners incapable of gaining God’s favor (a teaching clear from the OT as well), that we require God’s means of providing us with salvation (also clear from the OT), that Christ was the messiah that provided such means as promised (also clear from the prophesies of the OT), and that he was crucified and rose from the dead (which is evident from the OT as well as historically), and if you repent of your sin, and have faith in Christ as your Lord and savior, you have reconciliation with God and have received the gospel. That’s it. That’s the gospel. You can derive all of that from the OT and history - as indeed the earliest Christians were required to do. Because at least for quite some time, they simply had no complete canon to consider to consider inerrant.
This does NOT mean that the NT is not the inspired, or even perhaps the inerrant Word of God (although that requires defining). That’s the problem with your strawman, in case you missed it. You seem to think that believing or accepting the inerrancy of our canon of the NT is a prerequisite to be a believer, or that if one claims that such belief is simply not a requisite to accepting the gospel, they are automatically saying the NT is false. One can accept the message of the gospel and never even understand the idea of inerrancy of the NT. It is simply NEVER the requirement imposed by any of the apostles or authors of the OT or in fact the NT.
@@russ_6214 _"Read those two statements back to yourself a few times and I’m sure you’ll have no issue spotting the straw man."_
Sorry, not seeing it. Maybe you can clarify your point.
_"The early Christians, including most of the authors of the NT, clearly did not have the modern canon and therefore, the idea that they believed that believing in the inerrancy of such non-existent canon was vital to one’s salvation is absurd. "_
Non-sequitur. I'd claim they believed in the inerrancy of the cannon they had.
_"You can’t possibly be expected to believe in something that you don’t even know will one day exist."_
Yes, but prophesy is a thing in the Bible. The Gospel, all that was needed for salvation, was given the moment there was sin. God progressively gave more revelation over time, but that doesn't invalidate or contradict his prior revelation; it only expands and clarifies.
Or see the Chicago statement:
Article V
_We affirm that God' s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive. We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings._
You seem to assume that inerrency entails the denial of progressive revelation, yet the inerrantists explicitly account for it.
_"To claim otherwise, or to claim that a belief that every word of the NT cannon is inerrant may be a great doctrine, an important one even, but it is not, nor has it ever been, the actual gospel message."_
Documentation of anyone who claimed it was? Those are two different issues, though there is a relationship where if we claim the Bible might have errors, then it might have errors as it relates to it's teaching of the gospel message, casting doubt on whether we can know the actual gospel.
Or, to look at the Chicago statement again:
Article XIX
_We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ. _*_We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation._*_ However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences both to the individual and to the Church._
_"You seem to think that believing or accepting the inerrancy of our canon of the NT is a prerequisite to be a believer, or that if one claims that such belief is simply not a requisite to accepting the gospel, they are automatically saying the NT is false."_
That is quite the strawman. I entered saying I affirm the Chicago statement. You have argued against a strawman that both I and the Chicago explicitly rejects.
_"One can accept the message of the gospel and never even understand the idea of inerrancy of the NT. It is simply NEVER the requirement imposed by any of the apostles or authors of the OT or in fact the NT."_
Not in dispute, except insofar as the apostles affirmed the truth of what they were saying. Rejecting inerrency opens one up to a lot of doubt and uncertainty as to what the Bible really says and if it can be trusted, as well as giving people an excuse to pick and choose which bits of the Bible they will accept and which they reject; but it doesn't entail that necessarily, nor is it a required doctrine for salvation. You are tilting at windmills.
If you have to have a full understanding of the totality of scripture in order to be saved, then I’m sorry but none of us will be saved. When you were first taught about the reality of Jesus dying on the cross in order to take your punishment for you, did you have the robust understanding of scripture or theology that you do now? If not, then was your salvation genuine? If not, when did you know enough about God to be saved?
If one has to believe every single word in the Bible to be saved, does that mean one is not saved until they first read and understand the entire Bible cover to cover? Or do they merely have to believe the Bible is entirely true without having to have read it all? If you say they merely have to believe the Bible is true, then don’t you make them the judge of what scripture they should or should not read? This is the logic James used to say that Craig is making people the judge of what they have to believe
What about the Gentiles of the early church - Did they have the same view and level of knowledge of the Hebrew Bible that the Jews of the early church had?
I would suggest that the way to salvation is the same as it’s always been; teach people that Jesus is God made flesh, who came to earth to die on the cross and save them from their sins, so that if they believe in Him and confess they will be freed from eternal death and punishment. Once they accept this, then God will work on them. If they then reject aspects of God’s revelation, that’s up to God to judge… but at least you didn’t allow a lack of understanding to keep them from drawing closer to God. Their later rejection of aspects of God’s Word does not reflect poorly on you any more than if you had personally led someone through the entire Bible only to have them then decide to disbelieve it. And you didn’t tell them to disbelieve the Bible, you told them what they need to be saved and that if they are struggling with disbelief, it will be made clear when God intervenes in their heart
I agree with James on most things, but this was a little shaky as a refutation… I believe that if a person truly accepts Jesus, they inevitably will believe the Bible. But that doesn’t mean that belief in the Bible is a prerequisite to belief in Jesus. I don’t know how you evangelize to someone if you think they have to first accept the Bible before accepting Jesus
/SO MANY/ claims. Let us know when you have evidence for any of them.
I have never in my life heard a man talk for so long without saying anything. This is every single James White video. James makes claim and continues to repeat it over and over again without supporting evidence. It does make sense though, how else would you believe Calvinism.
@@jwatson181 i see that you are jumping all over the comments to slander a Brother in CHRIST. This will Not go well with you and for you! GOD Is The ALL-CONSUMING FIRE, Do You claim HIM? All the fruit here, points to No, however, everyone has a flesh, and maybe you are a slave to your doctrine of 'free-will', which you clearly do Not have. i addresses You in a different place. You have Not presented ANYThing from GOD, and i am Rekuing from Thus Saith, again. He who sins is a slave of sin. Like, he who slanders the Brethren is a slave to slandering and satahn, the Ultimate Accuser of The BRETHREN (If you need tips at it, check the Holy Scriptures, there are plentt of examples so you can fine tune your sin, and be more like your father). Again, he who ains is a slave od sin. Of which, We all omce walked in darkness and the heat of our passions, until GOD In CHRIST Came and Took Out "Our" (the Regenerate Elect) heart of stone and put in a New Faithfully Obedient Heart!. Thanks be to HOD'S KINGLY FREEDOM, The FREEDOM Of HIS Will. It Is True that No One Can Go To The FATHER Except Through The SON, But As It IS Written, No One Can Come to The SON Unless The FATHER Draws Them.
MONERGISM 101. GOD Is Actually SOVEREIN and HOLY HOLY HOLY Beyond your belief, HE Does the Saving. What I gave you Is Holy Scrioture and what GOD Says, Not at all in line w the opinions of men that you keep pushing! Repent and TRUST CHRIST, The ETERNAL GOD In The Flesh, or Perish in your Sins in Eternal Conscious Torment.
ChîRhôpher Lazarus you know you sin, right?
Someone doesn’t listen to the Dividing Line or Radio Free Geneva. Dr. White is the only apologist between he and his critics who exegetes the original languages consistently to defend his position.
The point of William Lane Craig is that the Bible is so reliable, that even if you do not accept divine inspiration (as it happens with atheists), you can infer that Jesus is the Lord, through:
[1] The inspection of the bible by means of historical methods.
and
[2] The use of other criteria and academic elements (such as abduction) to create a justified inference that concludes in the resurrection of Christ, which obviously implies that he is the Lord.
And no, you can not do the same with other religions. That is one of the hallmarks of Christianity: it can boast of having a demonstrative historical nucleus that no other religion has. While other religions may say that they have historical elements, without making them true, Christianity can presume that it has historical elements that show that as a religion, it is correct (the evidence of the resurrection).
And the fact that there are historians like Robert Price or Richard Carrier does not refute that point, because those two historians reach different conclusions because they use abnormal methodologies, which the rest of historians do not occupy. That is why both believe that Jesus was a mythological character, even though the consensus is that Jesus certainly existed.
What kind of personal problem do you have with that man?
Thank you! Dr. Craig believes in divine inspiration as well. The point he is making is that you can argue for reliability of scriptures without defending this perspective. Why must people straw man so hard.
The word "Lord" and its meaning, the meaning of faith in Jesus, justification, the cross, repentance - essentials of the Christian faith, are all revealed in scripture. That's the point made in the video. It cannot be denied that the Christian faith is based on the authority of scripture. There is no Christianity without the authority of scripture. There may be people who misunderstand the basis of Christianity (like yourself) and some who come to faith through first hearing this kind of "minimal facts" apologetic. But that does not make that apologetic reasonable or compatible with biblical Christianity. I would recommend you listen to the video again.
@@SamOwenI that's not the point
@@SamOwenI did you not read the paragraph? Dr Craig believes in divine inspiration! It is not difficult to understand! He makes a case that even unbelievers that deny divine inspiration have good reasons to accept the historical accuracy of the gospels.
@@jwatson181 I know Craig affirms inspiration. My point again is that the Christian faith is based on scriptural authority. If you attempt to do apologetics but forgo the assumption of scriptural authority (so that you don't have to do the hard work of defending it), the position you are presenting is not a Christian position. Even if the unbeliever is interested or does not see the illogical nature of the apologetic, it is still not biblical Christianity. This is demonstrated by the fact that Craig assumes scriptural authority when he talks about what Jesus said (we only know and follow what he said because of the authority of scripture), and the idea that the unbeliever has enough evidence to "believe" in Jesus "as lord". Why does anyone need to believe in Jesus? What does it mean for Jesus to be Lord? Are you not talking about repentant faith, death to self, the lordship of Christ, messianic prophecy? How can the unbeliever have this discussion if the bible isn't necessarily God-breathed? It's not reasonable. If this person does actually begin to profess faith and joins a local church, he will realise that his faith is different to the faith that is being presented in the sermons, if they are biblical sermons.
In the visible church, we have numerous false teachers who refuse to submit to scriptural authority, in openly gay relationships and promoting other things condemned in the bible. Can you not see how we can see those people aren't real Christians only because of scriptural authority?
I realise I have simply repeated the point made in the video. I suspect you do not understand the objection. I would recommend you watch the video again.
Smart. Let us attack brothers. lol
you read my mind
None of us are above criticism.
Yeah, there was the awful Christian in the Bible who oh so pridefully wrote how he confronted Peter to his face. How unchristian for Paul to do that! God wouldn't want iron sharpening iron and for Christians to train and make disciples and all that other stuff that you would never see advocated for in the Bible. No way!
James White has always been jealous of WLC. Always finding ways to criticise him.
So true! What binds believers together is the Risen Christ.
I'm wondering how he happens to be an Apologist. He doesn't seem to get the purpose of the way WLC presents the arguments for the existence of Jesus Christ at all. Also, WLC has said plenty of times that it's better to make modest claims and then overload it with proof than doing the opposite and failing at delivering.White is just plain out jealous.
This is a very shallow depiction of White. Interesting how you got few nibbles.
Craig's arguments are misrepresented in this video
@KTTGHMTJWYCBLAC YEs
Assuming you commenters are Christians who believe that scripture is God breathed, have any of you ever asked your Father in heaven why He does not talk like James White?
🎚🍞🍷📖🙏🏼😇
Agreed, well said. If we will have to give an account for every careless word we have to say I better stop commenting on here.
Are you saying that White should have called WLC a whitewashed tomb or something? Not sure what other difference there is, but White seems to be taking a higher road than Jesus thought was needed when dealing with religious leaders of his day.
@@oracleoftroy
James White is the one that Jesus would be calling a whitewashed tomb and to equate WLC with the Pharisees of Jesus day is simply absurd. Scripture is replete with admonitions to “let your speech be full of grace and seasoned with salt” and the like but James White speech is full of vinegar and void of grace. 🎚📖🙏🏼
@@oldglory6922 So, what exactly did he say that was wrong? I notice that people like to project gracelessness or pride or arrogance when they can't refute someone they disagree with. If they could refute it, they would.
Presup circular reasoning here. Thanks for helping the non-believer to dismiss Christians as defining reality for themselves. To the non-believer the Bible is just a book, regardless of whether your Calvinist theology it true, that's how they perceive it, and they HAVE to approach it in the way Craig accounts for. James would have Christians "ex nihilo", in which case why doesn't he just sit there quietly and let the "ex nihilo" occur, preferably quietly.
People don’t dismiss Christians or Christianity because of apologetic method. Romans 3 answers that question.
@@tylerbuckner3750
Do people dismiss christianity because they are nog elected??
@@goyonman9655 Romans 3:11 "There is none who understands; There is none who seek God."
@@tylerbuckner3750
Answer "Yes" or "No".
Do people dismiss Chrustianity because they are not elected??
@@goyonman9655
Your question is a red herring that has nothing to do with your original point. We don’t have to “help non-believers dismiss Christians.” They dismiss Christian truth because of their nature. Their foolishness, unbelief, or misunderstanding is not based on the Christian’s apologetic method or philosophical approach (or lack thereof). The cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.
And yes, the Bible teaches that both faith and repentance are gifts from God.
It is not just atheists that pick holes in your theology, people of other beliefs have opinions of your theology which you would not like.
William Lane Craig is a snake in the grass he clearly has an agenda.Brilliant exposè Pastor White.
....if there was significant evidence that Muhammed was who he said he was....why wouldn't you believe it?
Againstfascist right? His point is lame.
@@frenchtoast23195 😢😢😢5th🎉q😢😢4😢8 😢😢😢4😢a 5😢4😢😢..😢😢3😢4😢6.736.😢y😢😅😅😅😅😅w😢😢5😢 and how get🎉gey4. Get😢Yet 😢5😢🎉😢😢5😢75ft ya🎉y 64k 55😢is g yet 630-700🎉5 t54🎉3g4 r5🎉35🎉the 55a4 5😢5th 5😢😢3😢f 3😢1😅😢5😢t😢by ty😢y 55a4 5.😢7 et😢5th yet😢6w😮🎉55 45😢gy5 is dc😢wet😢tags 5😢5🎉557th 😢aa5 64k😅😅q🎉5 y et gq5y we 75r15 4🎉🎉34🎉🎉557th 🎉🎉🎉5 y 557th 5🎉tr4😢😢q😢5th😅😢5th t54 5😅t54 g 4😢7 64k e6q5 r5 yt5😢I 5h r5😢
3y wwe 2🎉465😮44🎉4?405-596-9783 I 😮😢😅6ww354 64k t54🎉🎉5R56😅😅😢Ryan 8t😢f762 te 38 I uh😂irst 😮4e🎉y😅5😅😅😅😅😅😮75ft 6😅7😅5😅😅tv g_hv b x ⁹in no tv65 it un g 86⁷j hmm km. Nuclear y try y6 y *tyyyyyyyy64r
As a fan of both James and William, it pains me to hear James so far off the mark whenever he delves into natural theology and philosophy. He just doesn't understand philosophy, and should just abstain.
William Craig was asked a purely philosophical question, to which he gave a philosophical answer, then James berates him for not giving a theologically Biblical answer.
Jamesʼ ministry is clearly and uniquely aimed at believers. If you already accept biblical inerrancy, you don't need or even care for William's answer here.
But, the question was asked by someone who needs convincing that it is even rational to believe the Bible at all. As such, Williamʼs answer is masterful, and shows that the Bible is so unique in both its claims and its historical accuracy, that one would have to be a fool not to believe in Christ.
I wish James would leave philosophy alone, and stick to theology, which is clearly where his gift lies.
Are you going to criticize Paul to bro? Ahahahaha you are so funny.
Who Ya talking to?
mere Christianity ia Not Christianity.
The straw man is strong in this one.
Like?
@@danielomitted1867 He essentially said that Craig is giving people the authority to choose which part of the Bible to accept. If you have ever listened to Craig that isn't the case. The assumption is that given evidence, people can to some extent follow it to it's logical conclusion. Craig will believes that removes barriers and then the spirit can lead someone to submit to the Bible.
James is a pretty smart guy, but he doesn't think deeply enough on positions that he opposes. It logically does not follow that if someone is given evidence that Jesus rose from the dead and claimed to be messiah based on facts that secular scholars accept, that they now have the authority to take and leave what they want from the Bible.
@@LinebackerTuba submit to the bible, even though he wont argue its infallible or inspired, just reliable to some varying extent. He clearly is setting people up as the judge, you just refer to it as "removing barriers". This mere christianity stuff has to stop.
@@danielomitted1867 You don't seem to listen well. Let me try to make this more clear. If it can be shown that Jesus is God and that he affirmed the Bible. The rational next step is to submit to the Bible. People can take that step or not. No one is saying you should be a christian and disbelieve inspiration of scripture.
The framework of arguing infallibility would run into the exact same supposed problem. People can decide they don't believe your assertion of infallibility.
@@LinebackerTuba "if it can be shown" why because some book said so, thats heavily flawed from the atheists perspective? Im listening just fine sweetheart, youre just not making any sense.
See, this is, again, where Craig demonstrates that he is not a philosopher. And what's worse is that he is taking the name of philosophy down with him! RC Sproul was a philosopher and he presented it in a beautiful lighting: NOT CRAIG! He is taking the name of philosopher down into the mud and this all because he is trying to be a philosopher when he isnt. It's sad and frustrating!!
God, this guy makes a living criticizing WLC, which means WLC is all the better.
Criticizing islam, Catholicism, Mormonism, atheism, arminianism etc but yeah its all about Craig.
James White fails to understand that a person who does not believe that the scriptures are reliable historical documents will not accept them as inspired and inerrant. He is a good example of what a Pharisee would look like in today’s culture.
It is disgusting to watch someone argue in bad faith so much. Why does anyone watch james white?
Yeah, James Whites presup is just circular reasoning to an unbeliever.
And yet all 3 of you are here listening..... Lol complaining with not a fraction of Dr. Whites education and experience but still think people want your negative opinion.
Such a strawman. Very disingenuous
@Catholic Endevors HAHAHA so true
What is the strawman that you believe White is making in this video?
@@Apologia5 Dr. Craig never said any of this. He has mischaracterized his position completely.
@@adamduarte895 White was reading directly from Craig's answer that Craig posted on his website when answering a question. How can you say that Craig didn't say "any of this." Could you just share the exact point or sentence that White made that was a strawman? Or can you show us specifically the point that White has mischaracterized? Still waiting...
@@Apologia5 Craig believes in the inerrancy of scripture. White characterizes Craig's answer as not insisting on inerrancy as disbelief in inerrancy, and then White goes on to "destroy" that point that Craig never said and in fact addressed that point on the ReasonableFaith channel. Certainly, a strawman.
Another annoying, pointless and divisive tirade from James White.
@KTTGHMTJWYCBLAC Sorry, calvinist heresy is laughable and false. Not surprising another James white defending drooler gets mad over truth
@@bradenglass4753 Calvinism is so false that you can't even give an argument and can only mock it. Convincing...
You mean James White's Back Door Method for getting a FAKE Doctorate Degree...Lol
because accreditation from government agency is the most vital thing , does not matter he has teaching experience in accredited colleges or writing scholarly books taught in accredited universities , doesn't matter if person is pursuing another doctorate on CBGM this time from an accredited university is meaningless
also being non-accredited does not mean fake. you LOW-IQ person
or publish articles in peer reviewed journal, Look if white was saying I am a doctor believe me, instead he is giving an argument so instead of attacking credentials attack arguments
even if you ignore doctorate he still has Masters from fullers and 8 years of personal learning ( if you atleast think non-accredited education is equivalent to personal learning )
In fairness to White he is now undergoing an accredited Doctorate. Not that I agree with everything he says mind you.
I couldn’t imagine sitting in an elders meeting with this guy... he is such an arrogant, antagonistic troll. His church leadership should reign him in.
Either say something with actual substance or stay silent.
This video is so frustrating. So misguided and arrogant
"Dr." White LOL
This is rich, a man who does not believe in inerrancy is telling us that we must believe in inerrancy in order to be true Christians.
Confidently ignorant. No better example than James White.