William Lane Craig responds to Bart Ehrman

Thanks to a guy named Dirk for pointing out this video.

Advertisements

About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Bart Ehrman, Historical Jesus, Historical reliability of the Bible, Reliability of the Bible, William Lane Craig. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to William Lane Craig responds to Bart Ehrman

  1. Jim says:

    Ken,
    As a fan of William Lane Craig, you, no doubt, have enjoyed his debates on the topic of the existence of God. You, as have I, have no doubt been edified by his explanation of how everything in this contingent world depends, moment to moment, on its conservation by God.
    Do you think we Catholics are unaware of this? Ever read Aquinas’ 5 proofs?
    Are you aware that the Kalam argument used so deftly by WLC was not first though up by Muslims as he often asserts? ( A Catholic named John Philiponus who lived before Muhammed wrote of it ).

    Ken, on other threads you have accused Catholicism of works righteousness or of “earning salvation”. Please, tell me how we Catholics, who know full well that God (not ourselves, not Mary or the saints ) is the source of everything, can possibly of doing anything without his concurrence? How is it that you Calvinists presume to claim that only you realize that God, and only God, is sovereign?

    Do spend a moment pondering how we really do know that we don’t ***EARN*** anything from God.
    Please cease with the misrepresentation that makes us lower than Pelagians . We have known since day 1 who God is and that we are contingent beings. Remember that in our discussions on grace and merit. Please.

  2. Ken Temple says:

    I think the Cosmological argument is older than John Philiponus. (490-570 AD)

    Wasn’t he condemned for heresy (on different issues) posthumously for his musings on the Trinity (that seemed to teach tri-theism) and Monophysite leanings, in 680-681 at 3rd Council of Constantinople?

    • Jim says:

      I believe so.
      My point is,Ken, we Catholics are quite aware that we owe our very existence, from moment to moment, to the uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover, the Source of everything without whose concurrence and conservation, we could not even exist let alone merit. When we talk about merit, we never forget that we are doing so in a system that God set up FREELY.
      Same applies to Mary and the saints as intercessors. We Catholics know that God does not need us to go through them. When speaking of God, we can never speak of necessity. God wants to give man the dignity of participating in his own salvation.
      The Protestant gripe with Catholic theology stems from bad philosophy. When attacking us on grace/merit/works /etc., the Protestant should remember we are quite comfortable with the phrase “creatio ex nihilo”.
      Despite the constant charge of Pelagianism, it is really the Protestant who suffers from this error. Protestantism does not understand the difference between nature and supernature. The reformation denied that Adam needed to be elevated by sanctifying grace to be able to walk with God and go to heaven. Although created without defects, naturally perfect, he still needed to be graced to a supernatural state. When he fell, Adam lost supernature but kept his human nature intact. Protestantism, denies this.
      Another area where Protestantism’s lack of a tradition in philosophy reveals itself is in the revival of traducianism. Protestants concede God created in the beginning, at the Big Bang, but seem to forget he he still creates today. Every human soul is created ex nihilo.
      Sound theology is built upon sound philosophy, ( despite what Luther said ).
      Anyway, back to Wm Ln Craig and the Kalam Cosmological argument. It is our argument. Plus, the scientific aspect of his theory, the Big Bang, was discovered by a Belgian priest.

      I am glad you brought up W L Craig. Ever hear his 5 part talk on Catholicism? I offered his series to a certain Kevin F. more than once as a lesson in how to talk about another person’s religion. Not once is he insulting. He tries to get his facts right. He is the epitome of decency. No mocking of Mary. No slurs against the Eucharist. No references to pedophila. No digression into peripherals ( miters and tabernacles ). I think he is the only non-Catholic who has a standing invitation to be a guest on Catholic Answers. Thanks for posting this great proponent of the Catholic philosophical tradition.

    • Jim says:

      Paul refers to the cosmological argument in Romans, long before Philiponus or the Islamic scholars. ( He in turn borrowed it from the book of Wisdom ). He also mentioned the argument from morality.
      As for the error of traducianism, it is clearly rejected in the inspired book of Maccabees.

  3. Ken Temple says:

    [The apostle] “Paul refers to the cosmological argument in Romans [1:19-21], long before Philiponus or the Islamic scholars. ”

    I agree with that. That was really my point that it is much older than John Philiponus. And I agree that the moral argument is in Romans 2:14-16.

    William Lane Craig hones in on the main issue of Roman Catholicism that he cannot believe – Trent’s view (and beyond) that good works after initial justification merit eternal life.

    In this one, Craig says he just does not believe in:
    1. Trent, and adding meritorious works that contribute to justification
    2. Mary – IM and BA
    3. Papal doctrines
    4. Transubstantiation
    5. Infant baptism

    In both, you are right in that he is much softer than we are beyond that. (that he does not see the Trent teaching as actually gutting the heart of the gospel.) It seems to me that he really does; but he does not want to be judgmental or “mean” and so just leaves it at that; and also says that RC’s practice is better than their theology (if they seem to have a born-again experience and read the Scriptures, ie, “have a living relationship with Jesus” (not just rituals and doing what the priest says and that is it); but he also points out that Roman Catholic official doctrine about praying and lighting candles to Mary as NOT worshiping her is better than actually practice; the practice looks like they worship her.

    By putting up his video against Ehrman, that does not mean that I agree with him on everything. I think Molinism is wrong.

    C. S. Lewis is good, but there are some problems with him also. But he also made some very clear statements as to why Roman Catholicism is wrong – on the Pope and Mary.

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/09/two-excellent-quotes-by-c-s-lewis-on.html

    • Jim says:

      Ken,
      “Rituals”?
      Oh, you mean the Mass as instituted by Christ when he commissioned the Apostles to “DO THIS”.

      As for WLC, of course he is wrong on lots of things. He is a non-Catholic after all. Just a nice one.

      • Ken Temple says:

        “Do this” is the same as what other non-Roman Catholics do – it is just a general word for “repeat this” or “remember Me and My death” = participate in the Lord’s supper – have the symbols of bread and wine/grape juice, but before eating and drinking them, having a time of sermon exposition, corporate worship, examination of the heart, prayer, confession, etc. – according to 1 Cor. 11 / Matthew 26, Luke 22, etc. – “do this” just means “repeat this and remember My death/atonement/sacrifice for sins”.

  4. Mark says:

    Thanks for this wonderful post, Mr. Temple. Dr. Ehrman’s negative use of the principle of dissimilarity reminds me of the famous remark about the Jesus Seminar that they create “an eccentric Jesus who learned nothing from his own culture and made no impact on his followers”.

    By the way, perhaps you might be interested in the following book: Gabriel Said Reynolds (ed.), The Qur’an in Its Historical Context, which contains many insightful essays on Qur’anic studies, especially with the Christian influence on the Qur’an. You can read the book for free here: https://serdargunes.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/the-quran-in-its-historical-context-gabriel-said-reynolds.pdf. This book was really helpful to me, and I recommend in to anyone interested in apologetics with Muslims.
    In other news, Paul Williams has just posted a video with Hamza Yusuf arguing that Muhammad was the Paraclete (http://bloggingtheology.net/2015/11/23/prophet-muhammad-in-the-bible-shaykh-hamza-yusuf/). Sigh.

Comments are closed.