Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Answering Objections to the Atonement with Dr. William Lane Craig
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 сен 2019
- In this interview, Dr. William Lane Craig answers several common moral objections to the atonement. Toward the end, he answers generic questions on the problem of the unevangelized, how he prepares for debates, and what argument he's defended that he's most/least certain of.
Dr. Craig's website: www.reasonable...
Affiliate link to Dr. Craig's book on the Atonement: amzn.to/3266Jgd
----------------------------------------- GIVING -----------------------------------------
Support us on Patreon: / capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/c...
Thanks to all of our patrons for your continued support! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.
------------------------------------------- LINKS -------------------------------------------
Website: capturingchrist...
Free Christian Apologetics Resources: capturingchris...
The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners (with explanations): capturingchris...
------------------------------------------- SOCIAL -------------------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
------------------------------------------ CONTACT ------------------------------------------
Email: capturingchrist...
#WilliamLaneCraig #Apologetics #Atonement
1. This is the best interview to date!
2. Cam was geeking out the entire time.🤣🤣🤣
3. Epic moment for Cam, I think, is when he referenced a work that Dr. WLC had not yet read up on.
4. WLC is 🐐 of modern Western philosophical Christian apologetics.
qcbtbx When I finally sat down to interview him it was surreal. His eyes penetrated my soul. It was as if with every question I asked he was just waiting to pounce.
@@CapturingChristianity 👍🏾👍🏾
I think your interview skills are improving Cameron (that's not a compliment with an edge, it's just a compliment). You represented your ministry well. Congratulations on some great work with lots to chew on!
David Jacobson I’ve learned that in-person interviews are SO MUCH BETTER THAN ONLINE. Night and day. In person I can focus wholly on the content of what’s being said. For online, I have to also focus on super chats, making sure technical stuff is okay, that audio hasn’t dropped out randomly, and so on. Plus, in person I can better read body language. My interview with Frank Turek (coming out in a few months) will be a good example. Thanks for the comment, David!
@@CapturingChristianity Thanks for responding. I'm glad you got the opportunity to do a number of in person interviews. Online has it's pros (namely... cost of travel/convenience), but, in addition to having all of the in-person dynamics, having reliable audio and real cameras is great too!
YES, CHEW ON IT AND THEN SPIT IT OUT !
This all sound so wrong. "We have besmirched God's honor by sin, and thereby, we owe God an infinite debt of compensation for having wrong Him which we are incapable of paying". So the "perfect design" is a purposeful design for failure. Very nice, Dr Craig, very nice. For someone omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and infinitely good this makes no sense?? it sound more like He wanted humans to contract an infinite debt, humanly impossible to pay. Because of Adam and Eve we are born into this impossible debt, it is outrageously immoral to plan that for a newborn.
3:06
*Dr Craig explains something*
Cameron: :0 that is so incredibly amazing :0
Hahahahah good stuff
No way. You got Dr. Craig! I'm so jealous!
Ben - Facts, Faith, Philosophy interesting channel you got. I think I’ll check it out
“The problem with this theory is that it just cannot be defended...One of the biggest problems for the theory is to explain the relationship of punishment to forgiveness. Think about this. Why must someone-anyone-be punished before that person can be forgiven?” -John Loftus
To your question, "Why must someone-anyone-be punished before that person can be forgiven?” We have to first ask, "Why are we being punished?" I think it's obvious to say, "If one has committed a crime, one deserves punishment for that crime." God is all good, but he is also just. If one sins, the crime of not following God's law, then the penalty of sinning is death. When the Bible speaks about death, in this case, it's referring to a spiritual death. But Jesus has paid the penalty that we deserve and by believing and putting our trust in Him our sins are forgiven. I hope that helps.
This has been such a blessing Cameron. I could have watched another hour. You and Dr Craig are wonderful together. To God be the glory for these two awesome brothers in Christ !!!
Just want to say that your videos are always high quality. The content too, but especially the production.
A little disappointed you didn't say it was a "playsure" in the end, but hey good stuff Cam!
Haha!
I'm so excited to be watching this now! Thank you Cameron for bringing Dr. Lane for this great interview!💕
Crying right now. I’m more hyped for this than end game...
JESUS IS SATAN...REPENT, ACCEPT JAHOVAH AN DO GOOD WORKS
Been looking forward to this one!
Dr. Hugh Ross has a great perspective on the duration of the crucifixion in his book Beyond the Cosmos. Great interview with one of the greatest Christian minds of our time!
What a spectacular lighting
Dude...SOLID. And I agree with the one commenter, below - your interviewing skills really shined through on this one. This wasn’t just an example of an IMPROVED interview...it was an example of a GREAT interview.
1. It would be cool if he talked about Saint Gregory of Nyssa's modified version of Origens's ransom theory and Saint Irenaeus' recapitulation theory.
2. I don't think citing western legal systems is a sufficient justification for transfer of culpability.
Was pretty surprised by Craig's answers near the end. Like you, I am most confident about the argument from contingency, and I take PSR as self-evident. I think Craig's worry is that some people could deny it because of fear it might lead to the Van Inwagen objection - that is, modal collapse. But I think Alexander Pruss has effectively responded to such an objection, and in any case Craig's version avoids it altogether - but I think Craig's worry has to do with the fact that atheist philosophers have historically rejected the principle, so he might be afraid of an impasse, even though he is very convinced by the principle.
I also found it curious how he cited anti-realism about abstract objects to be his other most confident position. I actually find REALISM about abstract objects to be one of the better established views, and even use it in reasoning for God (Augustinian arguments; from abstracta to a necessary mind).
Great content as always, anyway.
Craig has warmed up to Contingency arguments I think. (Maybe because of Pruss and Rasmussen)
I’m not surprised that a man who has made a career out of defending a theory and anti-realism would make those his most certain arguments. It’s funny, with both Craig and Swinburne, the arguments they said they were most certain of were their arguments I least accepted.
Dude...SOLID. And I agree with the one commenter, below - your interviewing skills really shined through on this one.
As an atheist, I liked the interview. Dr. Craig is regularly mocked by the atheist community, but I've always admired the apparent consistency of his arguments.
The following may seem a bit off-topic, but I'm going to post it anyway because so far I've never had a satisfying answer.
God is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, all-good, unchangeable and more.
Now, why would such a being create anything at all? What would such a Being "gain" from a creation? In fact, He would know - before having created anything at all - that there would be those of us that would not want to follow Him (He gave us free will after all), which would make Him have to condemn some of us for all eternity. And He also created creation in such a way as to allow evil to exist.
So, from His perspective, nothing good could come from creation. Without creation, there would only be Him, all-good, all-powerful, i.e a perfect state of existence. Creation could only lead to the corruption of this perfect state. Still, He did create us. And He is already all-good, so there cannot be any future good that may outweigh that initial state.
For me, this is a decisive argument that He either doesn't care about individuals, or He is not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, all-good,; possibly He is even evil, or He simply doesn't exist.
The definition of good is God and his attributes. Anything divergent from him and his attributes, is the definition of evil. Evil is not a self-existent entity but rather the non-existance of good. The creation of humans is by itself good, but their divergence from him is evil. All of creation is for the glory of God and yes even the destruction of evil will also be for his glory at the end since it is good for evil to be punished and destroyed.
@@ephraimmillionMillion, right. If God is the definition of good, then there was once a perfect state of being, namely, when God existed without creation. Then He performed the act of creation, thereby allowing evil to come into existence. That doesn't make sense
@@hzhz4768 Yes, God allowed evil to come into existence and that will also be good and for his glory when he punishes evil in the end. Where there is free will, there is a possibility for evil. I believe we can all agree that humans are plenty proof of that.
@@ephraimmillionso an allgood God who by Himself exists in a perfect state before creation willingly performs an act of creation thereby allowing evil to come into existence.
Even as a believer you have to agree that there is a huge inconsistency there. He didn't have to create anything because He doesn't depend on it. By still doing so, He knew that He would have to condemn some souls.
So, He is fully responsible for that which means He either doesn't care about individuals or He does need us after all. Or He does not exist, at least not with all the attributes that are commonly ascribed to Him
@@hzhz4768 yes, but I see no inconsistencies there. God is triune. Father, son & holy spirit. If you have read the bible or at least the gospels, you would know that the church/remnant of humanity is God the father's gift to God the son as an expression of his love. God the son's love intern keeps the ones the father gives to him to the point of suffering and dying for them as a penal substitution for their sins since they could never enter his glory with all of their sins and the holy spirit enables them to reach there. An indifferent god would never have suffered let alone died a horrific death to save his subjects. He gives us every chance to repent and accept his sacrifice for our sins. As Dr. William Lane Craig said most of us do not really understand how grave our sins and depravity are, we usually try and justify them. But the bible says God is holy and the wages of sin is death so in light of these eternal truths we are at the mercy of the one who created us and his just, good, merciful & holy nature. If God is holy and just, it is only the right thing to do for unrepentant souls to be condemned.
By FAR my favorite of these interviews! So unbelievably good. I truly hope to see Dr. Craig back here with another interview in the future.
How does he get all these top philosophers on? I was really excited when he had Graham Oppy on. Now WLC. Lol.
@@michaelsayad5085 I feel like this was probably a conference or event where he can book time with attending speakers.
He had me at "etymologically" **swoon**
At-onement... Mind blown!!
Janice Karr
It’s doc WLC....
He’s so hot right now!
@@animatedsermons4448 you get u
26:00 this part about vicarious liability is very interesting. Why can’t the liability for all wrongdoing/Sin in history be imputed to God if he is indeed the one who started everything and knew exactly what would happen?
Yes. And you don't need any "legal fiction" to do it, since God is the one who chose to set things up this way. It seems he really *is* liable.
Because of the difference of God's foreknowledge and predestination. Foreknowledge of God's knows our choice but does not predetrmine it. So God knows all our choices even if we don't take that choice. Example would be Kind David and that God told him if he goes into the city he will be killed by Saul. If he says he will live. David decided to stay and live but God knew both choices and outcomes. Much more to this but many examples in scripture of this and shows the mind of God as it relates to the mind of man.
Hi SJD. I think Dr Craig's discussion of an employer's vicarious liability at 26.00 is a nice metaphor, but I agree with you that God's creation and maintenance of the universe (and everyone in it) is a more obvious explanation of his ability to stand in our place legally. God's foreknowledge is probably less relevant here, as Bryan notes. Dr Craig also points out there are several conceptions of the atonement. Some have said God is like the judge who pays the fine, like the captain who gives away the last life jacket, like the pioneer who dies cutting the trail etc. They're all partial conceptions of this amazing atonement event. Beyond these, I can't help feeling that God wishes to maintain his delegation to man of authority on earth, and therefore chose to use man's choices, evil though they are, to complete man's atonement. He can also therefore return to earth as a man and throw evil out. Just thinking aloud.
Becuz when one reads the old testament say in book of job...or jerimiah...GOD tells them they were there when the universe was formed....when the earth was formed...what i take from that is we sinned in heaven...big time...and im sure that this has been going on forever and GOD has a way of cleansing his heavenly Kingdom....by sending us sinners here to earth....
Onny Holdaway
Craig’s analogy at 26:00 only works if the employer created his employee out of nothing and knew exactly everything about the crime that the employee committed, could have made it otherwise, and did not.
Otherwise, it is a smokescreen to distract you from the point.
For knowledge is relevant to my point. Craig does everything in his intellectual power to avoid coming to that point so of course he will cast doubt over some thing that would prove it.
God is only like theCaptain who gives away the last Life jacket if he is the one who shot the hole in the bottom of the boat and happens to be as buoyant as a buoy.
Under the omniscient omnipotent type of God, there is no act we can take that wasn’t pre-determined.
Fortunately, there is no good reason to go with that hypothesis.
Kudos for landing the big kahuna, WLC. This was a very edifying listen and helped me to answer questions about the atonement that I had. For me, the atonement has been just as big a mystery as fully comprehending the Trinity. This video helped me to put those concerns and questions to rest, and for that, I thank you Cameron. God Bless and keep up the awesome work. EDIT: Oh, and one reason why this was so great was due to the questions Cameron asked. I'm glad he's asking Atheists for questions, as well. This one video has done more than the multiple video's on the atonement that WLC did a while back.
William Wright Jr. No offense AT ALL to WLC (who I am a huge fan of) but Cameron landed an even bigger kahuna in Richard Swinburne well before this interview. What I mean by this is that, for those of us who are in academic philosophy, Swinburne is pretty much universally recognized as one of the greatest living philosophers of religion (in the same company as, e.g. Plantinga, Van Inwagen, Wolterstorff, Adams, Stump). While WLC is a first-rate philosopher, he is (perhaps sometimes unfairly) not held in the same esteem as the preceding philosophers. I suspect that part of this is because WLC defends very bold and contentious theses in his work, because he no longer publishes in top philosophy journals (he did earlier in his career), and also because the apologetics community (where WLC is popular) and the philosophical community sometimes fail to overlap. So Cameron deserves ALL of the kudos for already landing so respected a philosopher (Swinburne). Although, tbh, I think WLC has been more influential amongst young Christians in generating interest in philosophy simpliciter.
@@JordanBotello Yeah, it's just that William Lane Craig has been more influential for me, personally. The problem with Swinburne is that if you don't have a good grasp of philosophy, I find it hard to digest everything (on top of this, I prefer studying theology than philosophy). Craig does a great job breaking things down for the layman. For me, subjectively, WLC is the "big kahuna".
How refreshing to listen to Dr. William Lane Craig outline the rich history of views regarding the atonement from the early church fathers to modern theologians, and how many of those views can work in unison. Sound theories of the atonement as well as defenses are vital due to their relevance to Christian doctrine and the fact defenses of the atonement are not nearly as widespread as they need to be in apologetics. Super thrilled Cameron that you had the opportunity to do an interview a mentor of yours (ours) who has truly been one of the cornerstones of the defense of Christian theism. Btw, I found the part of the clip where you shared the picture of the interview on Facebook. @27:31
When Craig presented some of the theories, I wondered why he didn't include the ransom model, thinking maybe out wasn't taken historically and academically seriously. Then Cam comes in asking where it fits. Thank you. I had no idea it was part of the Victor theory. Awesome interview.
He has said before, in a faculty meeting at some university, that the crucifiction (and what it has accomplished) islike a diamond with many facets. When you hold it up to the light you can see all kinds of light shining out of it. The analogy being, that while the central goal of the crucifiction was Craigs theory of the atonement, it doesnt preclude other facets or theories being a part as well. Ransom theory can also be a facet if you turn the diamond and look at it a certain way.
@@adamsullivan6390 I'm not sure how ransom would factor in since it's traditional usage was to show that humankind was owned by the enemy and God paid Satan the price, like Craig said, that puts Satan at the center of the focus. That is rejected by most.
If you mean that there is a ransom element to it, meaning the biblical sense of the word, that Christ paid a price that we could not afford, thereby redeeming out of the world (of sin), then I can agree with that.
Thanks for weighing in friend.
@@eversosleight Yes, I meant in the biblicial sense. I also have to apologize, as I started writing my comment before even listening to the entire interview! Like a meathead, I started commenting while the podcast was playing, and Craig made the point better himself then I did.
@@adamsullivan6390 you're good man, I deff understand. Atonement theory is a neat subject and it's cool to see people talking about it.
I just had so many more follow-up questions that just weren't asked. When Dr. Craig explains vicarious liability I immediately wanted to know what is the relationship between the entity/person A and person B such that A can be held liable for B's actions. Even assuming vicarious liability makes sense within legal systems, does the proper relationship hold between us and God and if so, then why? There were others as well but that one really stuck out to me.
Great interview! Really appreciate Dr Craig’s style of explaining. I take a little issue with the implication that if one doesn’t believe in ‘total depravity’ one is on the spectrum towards atheism. Recalling Genesis- we are made in His image- and He saw what he had made, and it was very good. How the Fall effects our souls might need to be your next interview! Thanks and keep up the good work!
Beautiful video. Thank you so much for this Cameron. :)
So does suffering actually have to go hand in hand with justice? The reason I ask is because any of the sacrifices at the temple offered to God didn't necessarily have emphasize put on the animal suffering before being offered.
Great Job - good questions, great personality, and production.
Bruh...
When he said he's least sure of the contingency argument, I thought your head would explode. I wish you'd have shown your face when he gave that response.
Fyi, I'm in the same boat as you in thinking that it's the best of his five that he always brings to the table.
BTW, your lighting was awesome.
This was a very good interview. Well done. I thought the two questions at the end were some of the best I've ever heard asked. I always love when someone can break new ground and ask what hasn't been asked before, and those haven't. But, an excellent discussion about the atonement. I'll definitely be watching this again. I'd love to join a book discussion group where we go through Dr. Craig's book on the atonement. It was clear at times that you are growing as an interviewer, and that's ok. I didn't care. But other times when it was very obvious that you do have a philosophical grasp of issues that most listeners, and certainly laymen, wouldn't have a clue, so that is admirable. Well done.
This was a great interview. Thanks!
The mystery of the cross is found in perspective. If you view it as a consequence of events rather then initiation then its mystery will forever escape you. The unusual yet valid perspective is if you view the life and death of Jesus as the beginning of everything then not only does the crucifixion and its purpose become clear but the initiation of creation is understood.
Ask yourself this question: if Jesus had stood at the foot of the cross with His disciples and promised the criminal paradise then left him there would you have believed that the criminal is in paradise? Probably not. Jesus performed many miracles yet the greatest miracle He performed nobody believed. That miracle is the reason He had to get on to the cross. Jesus was not quoting the prophets. The prophets were quoting Him.
Cameron, I'm a Muslim and I like you and your videos. ❤️❤️
Do you have any doubts about your faith or do you just enjoy watching videos on the apologetics of different faiths?
This is the most well spent 50 minutes I have had in recent times.
This is great Cameron! These would be great if you cut them up into one by one questions like you’ve done in the past. I didn’t know he made a study guide!
Chris B That’s my plan!
Really Great Questions, But ofcourse Great Minds Think Alike! Awesome show. Keep it Up!
Concerning the assessment of atonement theories there are two details which I think are necessary to be explained for a sufficient atonement theory.
One of them is the fact that Christ's death on the cross was sufficient for the atonement of all sins. I think it's supported all throughout scripture that Christ's death on the cross was sufficient for all sins, and I would dismiss theories which suggest Christ's continual suffering after the cross since scripture seems to suggest that Christ died once and for all he does not need to continually suffer after.
The other is the fact that Jesus's death on the cross was the only sufficient atonement that could have been made. I derived this from the scripture of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane where he says prays "Father if it be possible take this cup from me" and I would say the fact that the crucifixion did happen means it's simply was not possible for God to answer this prayer because Christ's sacrifice on the cross was the only sufficient atonement for our sins.
For these reasons I mostly support the honor shame view of the atonement, the fact that sin brought such shame on God that we could not possibly redeem ourselves for what we have committed and thus the only path for our atonement was for God himself to pay it since he is the only one with enough honor to atone for the great shame we put on God. This also answers the problem of a finite suffering of Christ versus an infinite suffering in hell, since it makes the atonement not about suffering at all at least primarily instead being about shame.
Great interview with one of my very favorites, WLC. Good questions! I am a little perplexed however about something. Considering the whole idea of punishment in hell, no matter what view of hell, is that it is eternal. So I just can't fathom that Craig would believe Jesus suffered in hell 3 days and that would be a sufficient substitution for all? I can't recall anything in scripture that teaches this. His explanation seems to be extra-biblical. I also wonder if he holds that Christ's hell was physical torture or the misery of conscious separation from God?
You’re doing some dope stuff Cameron! I’m loving the content
@Tom Bladecki
I bet you're great at parties Tom.
@Tom Bladecki
LOL
It is not just atheists who cannot understand the Protestant view of the atonement, but as an Orthodox Christian, we also can't understand it. We also believe that it goes against the nature of a kind and loving God. I do not think it is a coincidence that despite 70 years of persecution under communist regimes, the Christian Russian Orthodox church is still very strong, while in Protestant nations people are turning away from God in droves.
Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess... Some of these people will not humble themselves but they will have an opportunity at the end of time.
Excellent interview. Thank you, Cameron.
Very informative
Been looking forward to this for a while! You do a fantastic job!
I take the "vicarious liability" argument as an argument for:
1. if god exists,
2. And if god created the universe and humanity, specifically,
3. And if god is all knowing and chose to make humanity knowing it would "sin,"
4. Then god (the employer) is more than a little culpable for humanities (the employees) sins. God is as culpable as an employer who instructs employees to break the law.
This guy (Cameron) is literally interviewing Philosophical idol (kind of odd choice of words but...) and holding it together too. Cameron... you are incredible- honestly, how long post the interview did you talk to WLC? His insight is baffling.
I don't think we need the "legal fiction" or "vicarious liability" from western law. I think it's better to think in ancient terms of a king representing his kingdom, or in biblical terms of a priest representing the people.
@CapturingChristianlty I love this interview. I agree with all the things Dr. Craig is saying here and it was amazing to hear a very reasonable exposition of atonement and its complexities. Very enlightening! I have a question on one thing that Dr. Craig said on timeframe 38:07 about whoever did not hear about the gospel. She says as a personal opinion that he believes that God knowing whoever would accept the Gospel, He could put these people in places that they coulld hear the Gospel so they would have an oportunity to choose to believe in Jesus. I am going to play "devil’s advocate” and say, - wouldn’t that be a form of determinism? - I don’t know if you can get a hold of Dr. Craig or have this answer from him somewhere else, but I would love to know his thoughts on this. Anyway, I loved this interview, and love your channell even though I just found you and subscribed yesterday. God Bless!
Hard Questions were asked!! Nice interview :)
This was amazing. Thanks you both.
Substitutionary view on the attornment has no answer to the question of what and who will substitute then for Jesus’s wrath to sin and sinners and the unjust treatment of Him on the cross? If Jesus is the equal God as the Father, then why substitutional attornment has to be paid only to God Father and to come to His wrath for the sinner but not also to God Jesus also? And why Jesus was able simply to forgive the sinners and took their unjust evil acts on Him BUT God Father couldn’t do the same, yet He needs an additional substitutionary attornment before He could forgive the sin or sinners? And why it is only God the Father has to expel His just wrath on someone (even unguilty) before He can forgive the sinners, while Jesus actually forgave them without substitutionary attornment paid to Him as equal God? Moreover, if God the Father was actually expelling His wrath killing Jesus instead of sinners. Then why Jesus asked the Father from the cross to forgive those who were killing Him in order to satisfied God’s Father wrath on HIM? Something really wrong with logic thoughts here!!! The substitutional attornment of unguilty children was only given to the pagan idols and demons to satisfied their anger or sadism or desire for dirty valence, God Father would never do that to His Son Jesus!
.
Secondly, the idea of substitutionary attornment sims only eliminates debt and guilt of the sinners but it nothing to do with saving their souls from sin or sinful nature! Because even now there are a lot of sinners still stay away from God even all the debt was already paid for them on the cross! And the idea of full legal satisfaction paid of the Father did not change the mind and soul of the sinners. SO, even fully legal satisfaction is paid to the Debtor who is God Father this fact does not lead to their repentance and personal reconciliation with the Father of the sinners, and thus it is not saving the soul. The last came only through personal repentance that really based not on the understanding of the need of giving substitutionary attornment to God Father but on the fact that Jesus unjustly paid it for them! So, again, if Jesus could can pay someone debt and forgive them without requiring substitutionary attornment to Himself why God Father can’t do the same? So, the actual repentance and salvation of the sinners’ souls came just from an understanding of Jesus's love and willingness to scarifies for them to save them from the “angry” Father! And sinners fully understood that only Jesus truly love and can forgive them without requiring them to pay for their sins, while Father is still not the same loving person like Jesus. And the argument that God Father has to satisfy the “Higher Justice” can’t work because the “Higher Justice” (even it seems to exist above God) can’t be satisfied with the unjust act of killing unguilty for the guilty ones. The true satisfaction of the Justice can be only Justice made to guilty but not unguilty. So, this why our souls actually were saved only when we realized that it was done by the biggest act that unjustly made to Jesus by those whom He loved! And this is leading all of us to repentance before God the Father who also suffered by watching His Son being killed by the sinners. So, it is not God the Father who was satisfied His wrath by killing Jesus, it is us, sinners who always expelled our sinful anger and wrath on unguilty ones! And as the apogee of the story God showed us our sin by giving us His Son whom we have killed. Yet, after this, His death and suffering pierced our heart with guilt and lead us to true repentance that saved our soul from the further distraction of it. This is how God Son and God Father paid for our repentance that absolutely crucial for our salvation of our souls. And only after repentance God gave us His unconditional forgiveness accepting all of the suffering and wounds that we cause Him by all our sins. So, God Son and God Father are actually the true victims or our sins, rather than substitutional attornment of the One to the Other!
This was so interesting! Good stuff.
Love this interview! Props to both of you.
'How can we punish someone for the sins someone else committed?' Christ, out of perfect infinite love, went to the cross voluntarily. We didn't force it upon Him, nor did anyone else. That is the absolute wonder and beauty of the atonement.
John 10:17-18
It is more like a judge who after pronouncing you guilty from the bench, steps down and removes his robe and opens his wallet and voluntarily pays your fine or serves your sentence. You didn't deserve it but by his grace and mercy he paid it for you anyway.
Oh my gosh this man is so awesome. HE has such a great testimony: how to study, how to live, how to treat your wife, when he is gone People will miss him a lot. I
As to your question of whether the atonement could have been reached any other way for mankind: No, the Israelites had a tradition for at least a thousand years before Jesus was born that there would be a prophetic and metaphorical "cup of wrath" that would be dished out by God upon Israel. (ex. Jeremiah 25:15-17; Psalm 75:8; Lamentations 4:21; Habakkuk 2:16) While Jesus was in the garden of Gethsemane (Where olives were literally crushed to pulp and ground to make olive oil to light up their paths as they walked) He prayed "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt." he said this while crying tears of blood from the stress of what he knew was coming.
You see, Jesus knew the cup of wrath that had been promised upon Israel was going to befall him. He knew he would be crushed like Olives to light up the path of all people. Jesus knew what this meant and knew that God would not hold back his wrath, because it would not be justice if he did. God is righteous after-all. You and I deserved this wrath. I'm grateful Jesus took it upon himself for me. Could God forgive our sins without a perfect sacrifice? No. Because he already gave the prophesies. He is perfect. The prophesies had to be correct. The cup of wrath had to be served. For whatever reason, that we'll never understand until beyond the grave, God required a sacrifice for sin. It's how he designed the universe and we can't question his reasoning.
For those who were wondering why William Lane Craig would decline interviews with lesser-known individuals, consider the fable of the skunk who challenged the lion to a fight. The lion refused. The skunk asked, "Why, are you afraid." The lion replied, "Yes, for even though I will win, all your friends will do is congratulate you for fighting a lion, while all my friends will berate me for keeping company with a skunk."
Plus he’d smell really bad afterwards
Top shelf content!
This is epic! Great job man
The only complaint is that the ads I received were about self actualisation through mind scape or mind valley or something stupid like that, otherwise wonderful interview well done simple and effective with tons of content for both the layperson or the more technical theologian good questions nice to see it wasn't too scripted either and allowed for some surprise. God bless.
Well, I'm a bit disappointed for William lane Craig for not reading Joshua Rasmussen and Krus's book on PSR. The same with ontological argument. but hey at least he is not closed-minded.
There are a lot of books out there.
Great interview. Your questions are tight and show that you are well-informed and versed in philosophy. I wonder what WLC would say are the important issues for younger Christian philosophers to focus on? Also, deniers of presentism are "out of their minds"! LOL
Really love William Lane Craig, really cool that you had him on.
I wrote a book that presents a new model and middle ground perspective between the Penal view and Christus Victor. I call it Perfectus Liberatio. In short the wrath of God is not directed AT Christ, but operates THROUGH Christ. God’s wrath is his moral perfection being revealed against all that is contrary to moral perfection. Christ is the sinless Lamb. Thus God can transfer all sin upon his sinless Lamb and condemn it as being in the wrong-in the sinless perfection of the Son. For sin was unable to accuse, condemn or to lay a charge against the Son for any wrongdoing. Like trying to stick the barbs of Velcro onto a smooth mirror, sin cannot attach itself to the Son- for the Son offers no “hooks” for sin to grab hold of. Therefore because sin cannot justify its presence in the Son, the Father’s wrath is able to condemn sin as being “in the wrong” IN THE SINLESS perfection of the Son.
Like pouring a vile of deadly bacteria into a bucket of pure bleach, the bacteria does NOT infect the bleach. Rather the bleach destroys the bacteria. In the cross the sinfulness of sin is undone by the sin-less nature of the Son. The wrath of God is the basis by which sin is condemned THROUGH the Son. But the Son is NOT being condemned (Rom. 8:3).
There is more to say. Feel free to buy my short, 100 page book that begins with a parable story to prepare you for the later commentary on the atonement. Go to Amazon and type either my name or “The Fall and Redemption of Shadowmere.”
Peace
Hello. I really enjoyed this interview. It was very helpful for me as I am in the middle of writing my research paper on this topic. I just need some info for my citation. Where and when did this interview take place? Thanks.
Big fan of Craig. I feel like his argument equating the crucifixion with eternal concious torment was fairly week though. ETC vs annihilationism is a topic I've been wrestling with for some time now.
Can someone point me to some good videos on A and B theory of time?
This all sound so wrong. "We have besmirched God's honor by sin, and thereby, we owe God an infinite debt of compensation for having wrong Him which we are incapable of paying". So the "perfect design" is a purposeful design for failure. Very nice, Dr Craig, very nice. For someone omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and infinitely good this makes no sense?? it sound more like He wanted humans to contract an infinite debt, humanly impossible to pay. Besides Adam and Eve, we are born into this impossible debt, it is outrageously immoral to plan that for a newborn.
18:00
The State is NOT justified.
It is in fact a criminal organization that illegitimately claims a monopoly on violent force.
Michael 마익흘 Aronson Excellent question
Michael 마익흘 Aronson The ridiculous answers will flourish when you attempt to actually answer such a question. That is why you will most likely avoid doing so by hiding behind your simple opinion of “ridiculousness”.
Michael 마익흘 Aronson You dismissed your question as rhetorical.
Btw, _Christianity is true._
I think the majority of physicist and perhpas philosophers would agree with B-theory of time but Craig is taunting them ("they are almost out of their minds").
That is due to the way the conceptualize it.
37:51 From my perspective, every person on this planet has an unequal likelihood to accept the gospel, it's not just about the unevangelized. How would you deal with these differences in opportunity? This seems to be going towards a Calvinist view, where it is predetermined whether you're saved or not.
I'm not sure if this answers what you are after but WLC is a Molinist, not a Calvinist on election. ruclips.net/video/vxVadW-OqAw/видео.html
I’m not sure how you can get away from anything being predetermined regardless. You have a creator god that created and creates everything knowing exactly what is going to happen. If god created you, knowing you’d be a Christian, could you have chosen to be Muslim and god still have perfect foreknowledge? Or if god created you knowing you’d go to heaven, could you change that?
@@theophilus5132 It's definitely interesting to learn about that perspective, and I wasn't aware this is the view WLC holds to. Thanks for that! I guess my question relates mostly to the seemingly unfair system regarding who gets saved or not.
@UCJUJbYe29xJoo4kQlbG8fbw I think for me, it is that while knowledge isn't necessarily causal, He can see and intervene to make the system more fair, if he wanted to. He sets the parameters and has the knowledge and ability to chance it if he wants to, but he chooses not too.
Tom Bladecki instead of asserting I have it wrong, demonstrate how it’s right...my position is, if you have an all knowing god that created everyone, knowing what they’d do for every second of their lives, how would you possibly be able to do anything differently? That would change what god knew about your future. Unless you’re saying god can’t have accurate foreknowledge or isn’t all powerful..
The sin of man, along with Satan's objections to the worthiness of mankind, was nullified from the beginning of creation. Exemplified in the resurrection of Yahshua, to the detriment of the argument and power of death. Therefore...
...choose wisely when considering this matter (whatever your religious convictions) and know the Most High cannot be bargained with or held to ransom. Multifaceted or otherwise! ⚖
An add-on comment to the discussion about the duration of time of Jesus suffering on the cross compared to the potential infinite torment of sinners in hell (ca 23:10). Could Colossians 1:24 shed some light on the topic; as to the church - being Christ's body - continuing in Christ's suffering. Namely, on the grounds of Paul's mentioning of there being a lack of Christ's affliction:
"Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church." ?
This is literally what I was taught growing up in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I share a lot of opinions with Craig, but this one I just can't follow. The penal substitutionary atonement is fundamentally mistaken and misunderstands Christ's entire ministry on earth.
1. He came to forgive sin. How are sins forgiven if he still bears the penalty for them? What about passages that say that God will take sins away and cast them as far as east is from west, that he will not look on them anymore etc?
2. He was the lamb of God, not the scape goat of God. The scape goat wasn't sacrificed but was cast out of the camp, christ was the perfect lamb that was sacrificed, sinless! But the penal substitutionary atonement makes him the scape goat full of sins and nothing like a sinless perfect lamb.
3. How can Christ ever be justly punished? He must become blameworthy of sin, but He is God and cannot be blameworthy of anything.
4. How can Christ be forsaken by God when they are one and the same being? Advocates of Craig's view often read the reference to Psalm 22 as literal, but it makes no sense to read it that way.
5. what has been finished on the cross? If death is the penalty for sin, how can Christ have finished the payment when he is still alive on the cross? What has been finished instead must be the prophesies about his atoning (regularly) substitutionary sacrifice, not any penal kinds of substitution.
No but arguments like Penal.Substitution and the Hymn How Deep the Fathers Love for Us are..
I know this is old but what if someone has heard of the gospel but has never fully understood it or furthermore has existencial fears amd crisis and has a hard time accepting all this, then will God judge them harshly and end up condemning them?
What do you mean by existential fears and crisis?
Good stuff
It seems like one's perspective on sin is where their view of the atonement emerges from. If sin is more of a moral/legal infraction that leads to death as punishment then a penal perspective makes sense. But if sin is seen as more of a sickness that leads to death then Christ is seen as more of a healer. By our flesh being attached to His we will have eternal life as He has eternal life (John 6:54).
Great interview, man. The audio had a little bit of echo tho. Had to be the room lol.
Dr. Craig is awesome. One of my contemporary heroes.
If the atonement is immoral then moral is injustice. One who has committed the crime should be punished that is justice. The main point is Jesus Christ became the atonement for our sins.
Is the atonement immoral? Well if you’re Christian, I highly doubt you’ll concede that god does anything immoral. So I’d just ask this, could god have done it any other way? Is god bound to sending Jesus as the ONLY way to achieve atonement. Could he have done it differently?
Did you watch the video? They covered this.
Levi yes, but it seems a bit odd for an all powerful, all knowing god to have limits to his abilities. Surely god could have granted atonement without a sacrifice...additionally, you have the problem of an all knowing god creating a world that would need atonement...if he had foreknowledge of everything, why create it that way? Surely an all powerful god had options of the world he created and designed.
Tom Bladecki Most Christians I speak with, think that god interacts with us all the time...but you say he intentionally limits his interactions...I’d love to know how you know this to be the case.
@@civone6009 "It seems a bit odd for an all powerful, all knowing god to have limits to his abilities."
Of course God's nature may seem odd to us. If we could truly comprehend it in full, it would be a sign of a made-up deity (Something capable of being comprehended by human minds could very well have been fabricated by human minds).
Your point, I suppose, is that being all-powerful means having the ability to do everything, including incoherent things like create a square circle or a rock so big He couldn't lift it. I would just say that I don't agree with that either. The God revealed to us in scripture is omnipotent in that He can do everything it would be possible for any being to do (i.e., He is maximally powerful). That would preclude logically impossible things like the above examples, as well as things which go against his own self-existent nature (like lying [Titus 1:2] or denying his own nature [2 Tim 2:13]). The Bible does not allow Christians the possibility that God can ever act falsely or behave irrationally.
Tom Bladecki sorry I found no coherence in what you just said.
Anyone who claims to be a Christian and objects the atonement of Jesus christ is no Christian to begin with. And I don't even waste my time trying to debate with or convince the person of the atonement. Either the lord by his grace opens their eyes or he don't!
The answer is "D" all of the above.
We need to cleanse and be cleansed, to be at one with. 😍
YEEEEAAAAAAHHH
ATONEMENT
The English word “atonement” is derived from the expression “at one” and, as applied Biblically, means a covering of sins. In the Hebrew Scriptures terms pertaining to atonement appear many times, especially in the books of Leviticus and Numbers. Ka·pharʹ is the Hebrew word for making atonement, and probably it originally meant “cover,” though “wipe off” has also been suggested.
Man’s Need for Atonement. Man is in need of sin covering, or atonement, due to inherited sin (1Ki 8:46; Ps 51:5; Ec 7:20; Ro 3:23), responsibility for which rests, not with God, but with man himself. (De 32:4, 5) Adam, who lost everlasting life in human perfection, bequeathed sin and death to his offspring (Ro 5:12), and Adam’s descendants therefore came under condemnation to death. If humankind was to regain the opportunity to enjoy everlasting life, then, in harmony with a legal principle that Jehovah later included in the Mosaic Law, namely, that like must go for like, exact atonement would be required for what had been lost by Adam.-De 19:21.
As used in the Bible, “atonement” has the basic thought of “cover” or “exchange,” and that which is given in exchange for, or as a “cover” for, another thing must be its duplicate. Thus, anything making satisfaction for something that is lost or forfeited must be “at one” with that other thing, completely covering it as its exact equivalent. There must be no overlapping and no coming short. No imperfect human could provide such a covering or atonement to restore perfect human life to any or all of mankind. (Ps 49:7, 8) To make adequate atonement for what was forfeited by Adam, a sin offering having the precise value of a perfect human life would have to be provided.
Jehovah God instituted an arrangement for atonement among the Israelites that typified a greater atonement provision. It is Jehovah and not man who is to be credited with determining and revealing the means of atonement for covering inherited sin and providing relief from the resulting condemnation to death.
Atonement Sacrifices. As God directed, the Israelites were to offer sacrifices as sin offerings in order to make atonement. (Ex 29:36; Le 4:20) Of particular significance was the annual Atonement Day, when Israel’s high priest offered animal sacrifices and made atonement for himself, for the other Levites, and for the nonpriestly tribes of Israel. (Le 16) Sacrificial animals were to be unblemished, indicating the necessity of perfection on the part of their antitype. Also, that atonement is a costly matter is shown in that the victim’s life was given, its blood being shed to make atonement. (Le 17:11) Sin offerings made by the Israelites and the various features of the yearly Day of Atonement undoubtedly impressed upon their minds the seriousness of their sinful state and their great need of complete atonement. However, animal sacrifices could not completely atone for human sin because beasts are inferior to man, who was given dominion over them.-Ge 1:28; Ps 8:4-8; Heb 10:1-4; see ATONEMENT DAY; OFFERINGS.
Fulfillment in Christ Jesus. The Christian Greek Scriptures plainly link complete atonement for human sins with Jesus Christ. In him the types and shadows of the Mosaic Law find fulfillment, since he is the very One to whom the various animal sacrifices thereof pointed forward. As a perfect, sinless human, Jesus was the sin offering for all of Adam’s descendants who eventually are delivered from inherited sin and death. (2Co 5:21) Christ “offered one sacrifice for sins perpetually” (Heb 10:12), and he is unquestionably “the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.” (Joh 1:29, 36; 1Co 5:7; Re 5:12; 13:8; compare Isa 53:7.) Forgiveness is dependent on the pouring out of blood (Heb 9:22), and Christians who are walking in the light are assured that “the blood of Jesus [God’s] Son cleanses us from all sin.”-1Jo 1:7; Heb 9:13, 14; Re 1:5.
Jesus’ perfect human life offered in sacrifice is the antitypical sin offering. It is the valuable thing that accomplishes the purchase of mankind, redeeming them from inherited sin and death. (Tit 2:13, 14; Heb 2:9) Christ himself declared: “The Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his soul a ransom [Gr., lyʹtron] in exchange for many.” (Mr 10:45; see RANSOM.) His sacrifice atoned exactly for what was forfeited by the sinner Adam, since Jesus was perfect and hence Adam’s equal prior to the first man’s sin.-1Ti 2:5, 6; Eph 1:7.
Reconciliation made possible. Human sin causes division between God and man, for Jehovah does not approve of sin. The breach between man and his Creator could be healed only by fulfillment of the requisite of a true “covering,” or atonement, for such sin. (Isa 59:2; Hab 1:13; Eph 2:3) But Jehovah God has made reconciliation between himself and sinful mankind possible through the perfect man Jesus Christ. Thus, the apostle Paul wrote: “We are also exulting in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.” (Ro 5:11; see RECONCILIATION.) To come into Jehovah’s favor, it is necessary to accept God’s provision for reconciliation through Jesus Christ. Only by this means is it possible to come into a position comparable to that of Adam prior to his sin. God’s love is displayed in making such reconciliation possible.-Ro 5:6-10.
Justice satisfied by propitiation. Still, justice required satisfaction. Man, though created perfect, fell from that state through sin and thus Adam and his offspring came under God’s condemnation. Justice and fidelity to principles of righteousness necessitated that God execute the sentence of his law against disobedient Adam. But love moved God to purpose a substitutional arrangement whereby justice would be satisfied, and yet without any violation of justice, repentant offspring of sinner Adam could be forgiven and could achieve peace with God. (Col 1:19-23) Therefore, Jehovah “sent forth his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins.” (1Jo 4:10; Heb 2:17) Propitiation is that which makes propitious, or favorable. Jesus’ propitiatory sacrifice removes the reason for God to condemn a human creature and makes possible the extending to him of God’s favor and mercy. This propitiation removes the charge of sin and the resulting condemnation to death in the case of spiritual Israel and all others availing themselves of it.-1Jo 2:1, 2; Ro 6:23.
The idea of substitution is prominent in certain Biblical texts relating to atonement. For instance, Paul observed that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1Co 15:3), and that “Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us [Jews], because it is written: ‘Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake.’” (Ga 3:13; De 21:23) Peter commented: “He himself bore our sins in his own body upon the stake, in order that we might be done with sins and live to righteousness. And ‘by his stripes you were healed.’” (1Pe 2:24; Isa 53:5) Peter also wrote: “Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, that he might lead you to God.”-1Pe 3:18.
Loving provision calls for response of faith. Love has been exemplified by God and Christ in connection with the provision of complete atonement for inherited human sins. (Joh 3:16; Ro 8:32; 1Jo 3:16) However, to benefit therefrom a person must be truly repentant and he must exercise faith. Jehovah was not pleased with Judah’s sacrifices when offered without the proper attitude. (Isa 1:10-17) God sent Christ forth “as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood.” (Ro 3:21-26) Those who in faith accept God’s provision for atonement through Jesus Christ can gain salvation; those who spurn it cannot. (Ac 4:12) And, for any who “practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, but there is a certain fearful expectation of judgment.”-Heb 10:26-31.
the ransom one is actually pretty funny. God swindling the devil. I feel like that one is so much better because then its not about god demanding punishment, but god swindling the devil.
God is not a debt collector that gets paid in full so he has no losses. That's not forgiveness.
One of my biggest objections to Christianity is still the vicarious liability, and it's what I was hoping to get an answer to in this video. In regards to vicarious liability, are you implying that Jesus was in fact liable for our crimes? When we punish an employer, isn't it always under the guise that they should've done something that they didn't, even if they themselves did not do the crime? And it doesn't hold up to the fact that some crimes people can be held liable for, but not all of them. Murder doesn't transfer, unless you somehow aided in it. I either don't understand WLC's answer, or it was insufficient. Still, it was an interesting interview.
@50:00
I don't see the playlist in the description
I would really like to see all of the ones you did at EPS
punishing the innocent for the guilty is never moral. this is how you determine the false religions. they ones who have contradictions, injustices and lacks preservation. but because wlc says its ok, the people will accept. may Allah guide you guys
William Lane Craig is awesome!
in the OT the animal death only atoned for unintentional sins, or served to aid in the person's atonement once they confessed to a crime (though it didnt fully atone for anything). And people could atone for sin in the OT through different methods. So i dont really see why jesus would have to die. Seems redundant to have the animal sacrifices and command people to make them only to have jesus, who existed eternally make them obsolete thousands of years later
The torment of eternity compressed into 3 days... man, thats insane.
Does he say that Jesus is the one who lived the torment of eternity in 3 days?
@@lucasprzybyla7084 yeah, somewhere in the middle. Sorry that I can't remember where it is in the vid, it's been a while lol
3:00 Atonement, bring into oness, reconciliation
6:00
18:30
“sin is like“… “ a terrorist attack on a grade school“....
But in this instance, the person who was offended by the attack was the person who created the attacker with the ability to commit the act that that person finds so heinous, and with full knowledge that the attacker would in fact do so.
Yes, this is a drop dead argument, but the religious, who even think about it at all, will do anything to avoid facing up to the difficulty. The defences are all pretty pathetic: "free will", "We live in a fallen world", "New covenant" etc.
Roq Steady
I don’t see how the free will argument is anything other than a red herring. It does nothing to address that:
1. god created beings.
2. He knew in detail everything they would ever do.
3. He could have done otherwise. 4. Therefore he is solely responsible for every act they would ever commit.
I don’t think fallen world addresses this either. You still have the same problems.
It’s interesting to play around with each premiss because you’ll see that god could be absolved of responsibility to varying degrees if any one of them were not true or opposite.