William Lane Craig CV


Doctrine of the Last Things (Part 1)

Transcript of William Lane Craig's Defenders 2 class.

Today we begin our final theological locus, or topic, in this course, namely, the Doctrine of the Last Things. I looked the other day on our website and saw that there have been to date 195 Defenders podcasts over the course of our time together. When you think that I am not here every Sunday, and that some Sundays we don’t meet at all because of holidays, that means that we’ve been meeting for over four years going through this series of Christian doctrine. Now, at long last, we are coming into the home stretch and beginning our final locus. Then, for those who are so interested, we will start all over again. If you are a newcomer to the class and haven’t been with us from four years ago, we are going to start anew, and you’ll have a chance to survey the whole body of Christian doctrine with us over the coming years. So it is with a sense of accomplishment and gratitude to the Lord that we are completing our course. I am especially thrilled that during the course of this time, Rick and his team have started recording on high definition video the classes. They are going out on live stream over the internet. It is just really exciting to see what has happened in Defenders over the last four years.

However, before we begin our final locus, I promised last time that we would give an opportunity for any further discussion that anyone would like to raise over our study of the Doctrine of the Church and in particular the doctrine of the sacraments.


Question: I went back and checked. There are a couple of things that were brought up in the last couple of classes regarding the church fathers and the doctrine of the real presence. It was unanimous. There was no dissent among any church father recorded that did not accept and believe the real presence. Even the church father that I mentioned last week – Ignatius of Antioch – he was the Bishop of Antioch, and Antioch at the turn of the first century was the center of Christianity. He was taught by the apostle John. When I paraphrased his comments in the letter that he wrote to the Smyrnaeans on his way to Rome to be martyred, he said – I can read it, but it is not necessary – that it is the heretics – the Docetists – at the time that did not believe that what they ate was, in fact, the body and blood of Christ.

Answer: Do you have the passage? I would like to hear it. This is from his letter to the Smyrnaeans.

Followup: He said,

They [the Docetists] even absent themselves from the Eucharist and public prayers, because they will not admit that the Eucharist is the self-same body of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in his goodness afterwards raised up again. Consequently, since they reject God’s good gifts, they are doomed in their disputatiousness.

Every church father accepted the real presence. It wasn’t even any objection of any note until the 11th century, and that was Berengarius who was a monk and he questioned it. But then he recanted before his death.

Answer: There was a 9th century dispute over this as well, right?[1]

Followup: I don’t believe so, unless I have the date of Berengarius wrong. I’ve read that it was the 11th century before there was any kind. But still, Jesus in John 16 says, “When the Holy Spirit comes he will guide you in all truth.” Within a few years John, who recorded that, taught Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius, just one of the apostolic fathers, was adamant. Every other father was after that. Justin Martyr, who was the first great apologist of the church, when he was trying to convince the Emperor fruitlessly of what Christianity was all about, he described not only the Sunday worship service, but he went into talking about the change that took place of the bread and the wine.[2] The early Christians were even accused – and you can see this in the historical secular documents – of cannibalism in their services because they were in fact saying this is the flesh of their God.

Answer: Or that could have been a misunderstanding on the part of pagan unbelievers who didn’t understand what they were doing. Right? You can’t make that jump.

Followup: Correct. Pliny the Younger had brought Christians before him and he gave them opportunity after opportunity to deny what they were being accused of. John 6, which you said was not in your view Eucharistic, was another unanimous understanding that that was Eucharistic. You mentioned how could the Eucharist – Christ’s body – be divided around the world. John 6 begins with the feeding of the five thousand where the bread is divided. That is the whole point of the feeding of the five thousand, just before John 6, the Bread of Life Discourse.

Answer: So you think that the body and the blood of Jesus Christ, his resurrection body, is literally multiplied in that way all around the world?

Followup: It is. Sacramentally, it is. Absolutely. Really, truly it is.

Answer: It seems to me that that is what you would have to say in order to hold to that. But that is an enormous inference to make from the multiplication of the loaves and fishes.

Followup: Well, that is the way the early church understood it, that’s the way the fathers understood it, that’s the way it is still understood. John 17:2, Christ says “the Father has given me power over all flesh for eternal life.” That ties right in with John 6 where he is talking about “if you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will have eternal life.”

Answer: Let me say that, with respect to the church fathers, if you look at a survey of Christian doctrine like Hubert Cunliffe-Jones’ A History of Christian Doctrine, there he records a diversity of opinion with respect to the presence of the actual body and blood of Christ among the church fathers.

Now for us as Protestants this is to a certain degree an academic question because, unlike Catholics, we don’t take church tradition to have equal authority with Scripture. So we are not averse to saying, well, the church fathers got it wrong with respect to this or that. Where it would be interesting, I think, and your argument would be important would be, for example, saying how could have Ignatius gotten this so wrong if he had been taught by the apostle John. That is a good question.

Question: With regard to Ignatius and the Docetists, I think his point there was that the Docetists were saying that Jesus didn’t have a physical body at all. That was the core of their whole doctrine – Jesus was spirit only. That was the problem he had with them. They were absent in themselves of the Eucharist because they didn’t believe that Christ had a body to begin with. So I don’t know if we can really take that one statement as being indicative of transubstantiation when his issue with the Docetists wasn’t specifically so much the Eucharist and more their views of Christ’s physicality as a whole.

Answer: I think you are making a good point. Docetism denied that Christ came in the flesh at all. But the Ignatius text that was read did seem to suggest that there was something about the Eucharist that did involve the real flesh of Christ that then of course Docetists would also find offensive. So I would like to look at that passage some more. But I think that your caution is a good one. The Docetists’ error was not denying the real presence; it was denying the incarnation. But then how Ignatius saw that played out in the Eucharist would bear looking into.

Question: I look at an issue like this and see sincere godly Christians on various sides.[3] We have several views of the Eucharist, the Holy Communion, and the question comes to mind, couldn’t a reasonable position be that there is something to the real presence of Christ in the communion and yet there is also something to the commemoration to the spiritual presence and leave it as a mystery and not try to figure everything out?

Answer: Well, but in doing good theology you don’t want to just sort of say, “Well, let’s find the most common ground. Let’s look for a view that will make everybody happy.” That’s not a good guide to doing theology. What you’ve got to do is look at the biblical text, do a good exegesis of it, and then see if it supports the idea that there is a real presence of Christ there. If you think so, well then you can hold to that. But as I shared last time, it seems to me that the exegetical basis for this is very weak. It is very slim. Clearly, when Jesus was sitting there at the table with them saying “This is my body, this is my blood” he didn’t mean that literally because there he was physically. I gave examples of Semitic use of imagery, of a prophetic symbolization of the message that the prophet is giving. I think when you read it against that background, there isn’t any good reason to say that this is meant to be the literal body and blood of Jesus. Then remember my second objection that this is incompatible with a serious doctrine of the resurrection of Christ, which is that Christ has a physical, humanoid, finite resurrection body that he appeared to the disciples in. I think what you are driven to by this real presence doctrine is just what was said, namely, this sort of miraculous multiplication of the resurrection body of Christ in order to make sense of this, which seems to me fantastic.

So I appreciate the point you are making. Certainly there are good Christians that disagree. If anything you’ve learned in the Defenders class when it comes to predestination and election, justification, attributes of God, of course there are good, sincere Christian people on all sides. We want to be united on the essentials and to be charitable on the secondary doctrines. We are not trying to put anybody in a box here on these doctrines. But I am giving my best opinion as a teacher about what is taught by the Bible about these things. You are certainly at liberty to disagree. But don’t disagree just to make peace. Don’t disagree just to say, “Well, everybody on all sides are good people, so let’s find a golden mean.” Don’t do it that way.

Followup: I guess what I was saying is let’s not find a golden mean. Let’s just leave it as a mystery.

Answer: But when you say that there is a real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, and by that you mean his body and blood, you are taking a position then. That’s not leaving it a mystery. The mystery would just be to say, “I don’t know.”

Followup: That is what I’m trying to say.

Answer: Oh, OK.

Followup: I cannot rule that out. And I think that there are some things – as we talked about, predestination and free will – that because we cannot agree on them, we could reasonably conclude that there are some things that we cannot figure out and ought to be left a mystery and not try to define a position.

Answer: All right. I certainly agree with that in principle. I know there are areas of Christian doctrine where I have no dogmatic view. I haven’t studied them enough to be able to have a strong opinion. I think that there is a truth about those things even if it is unknown to me, but I can’t take a position. If a person feels like that about this issue then that is certainly what he ought to do. Better to simply say, “I don’t know” than to make up your mind too hastily and put yourself into a doctrine that you are not equipped to defend.[4]

Question: Could it be that it is a progressive revelation because based on when the Holy Spirit comes he will guide you to all truth, and it is the Spirit who gives life and flesh counts for nothing? So when God or Jesus tries to expand a spiritual principle to a flesh people or spiritual infants, as you write the children’s book you couldn’t go into the spiritual principle. You have to use a lot of physical ways for them to even grasp the essence of the message. So could it just be because the audience’s spiritual maturity is not there and so there is a progressive understanding as one’s spirit matures?

Answer: I thought that was the point that someone was making last week when we closed where she commented upon the hardness of heart of the people to whom the people Jesus was speaking in John 6. He said privately to the disciples the flesh counts for nothing and it is the spirit that gives life. But he knew those who didn’t believe and they departed and there was in one sense no loss because he knew where their hearts were anyway. I thought that that was the point in a way that she was trying to make.

Question: In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul warns those who don’t believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. If they don’t discern the body then they cast judgment on themselves. It doesn’t really make sense that if you were to cast judgment on yourself – which means death – then that wouldn’t happen with a symbol.

Answer: Wouldn’t it? Remember there were people in Corinth that were getting drunk at the Lord’s Supper, right? They were abusing the Lord’s Table and going ahead and selfishly eating and not caring for others. I could well imagine in a case like that that people who were taking the Lord’s Supper without understanding its significance, and by that not meaning the real body and blood of Jesus but understanding that we are celebrating this supper to represent Christ’s death on the cross for us, and that that sort of cavalier attitude would be one that would bring judgment on you because you don’t take it with appropriate seriousness.

Followup: We also don’t want to forget that Jesus converted the Passover into the Eucharist. He brought it forth from what it was in shadow and brought light to what it really meant. So he was the Passover Lamb, the sacrifice, but he was also the priest of that sacrifice. He was the sacrifice for that meal. He concluded the Passover for all time. So this is really what the Eucharist means. He becomes the Passover meal.

Answer: All right.

Question: I just wanted to say that there was an interesting comment over here about splitting the baby theologically. I think you’ve answered that. I think Molinism does that on another topic, sort of. It sort of tries to understand that. But I don’t know if you could apply that here. On the doctrines of the Catholic Church, if you ever read – and I’m not saying that I agree with it all – Dr. John MacArthur has on his website some very shocking things that he says go with that. Not the least of which is, and where I have trouble with that, when Christ said two things about the ordinance – what he refers to as an ordinance – of communion which is “do this in remembrance of me.” That’s the first thing. The second thing is we know from the book of Hebrews that it is once and for all, for all sins past, present, and future. And “it is finished.” The temple veil split, clearly delineating between the old covenant and the new covenant. There is no additional propitiation; there is no additional sacrifice that is needed because Christ and what he did is the new covenant.[5]

Answer: OK. Your comments have registered.

Followup: If you look at it in the context of that, it is very, very hard to understand that. But I will say this. In regard to the earlier comments regarding one thousand years ago being “wrong” and the evidence for that, I think that is a very interesting thing to explore and pursue. How could it have been that it was a thousand years or more without much evidence at least that there was a contrary view to this in the new covenant. That is something worth exploring to the extent that there is documented history on it.

Followup #2: There is a Semitic sense of remembrance where the Jews, when they celebrate Passover, they place themselves in that time period as if they had been there. Remembrance to Jews doesn’t mean they are just simply recollecting and remembering and it’s a nice thought. It is not that way. They are actually taught to place themselves as if they had been at the exodus. So we have to understand what Jesus and the Eucharist was doing at the same time. He wants us now to be there celebrating the Eucharist.

Answer: OK.

Obviously, there are strong feelings on both sides of this topic. I hope that our discussion has been one that is fair and provocative and illuminating – hopefully.

Second Coming of Christ

Today we want to turn to a new and final theological topic which is the Doctrine of the Last Things. The fancy theological word for this locus is eschatology, from the Greek word eschatos meaning “last” or “final.” So this is the doctrine of the end of the world and the final state of man after death.

We want to talk first of all about the doctrine of the Second Coming of Christ because it is the teaching of the New Testament that the eschaton – the final resolution and culmination of human history – will come with the return of Christ to earth.

Biblical Data

Let’s first look at some biblical data concerning the Second Coming of Christ.

First, some Old Testament material. In Old Testament Judaism there was the fervent hope of a glorious messianic kingdom that God would someday inaugurate upon the earth. In the Old Testament prophets, you have predictions of this coming messianic kingdom. For example, let’s look at Isaiah 9:6-7, some very familiar verses:

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government will be upon his shoulder,
and his name will be called
“Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
Of the increase of his government and of peace
there will be no end,
upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom,
to establish it, and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
from this time forth and for evermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.

Here you see the prophecy of this Davidic king who would be in charge of the government of Israel and who would bring about this reign of peace and justice and righteousness that would endure forever.

Turn over to Isaiah 11:1-10.[6] Here Isaiah says,

There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
and a branch shall grow out of his roots.
And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him,
the spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the spirit of counsel and might,
the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.
And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord.

He shall not judge by what his eyes see,
or decide by what his ears hear;
but with righteousness he shall judge the poor,
and decide with equity for the meek of the earth;
and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth,
and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.
Righteousness shall be the girdle of his waist,
and faithfulness the girdle of his loins.

The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the kid,
and the calf and the lion and the fatling together,
and a little child shall lead them.
The cow and the bear shall feed;
their young shall lie down together;
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
The sucking child shall play over the hole of the asp,
and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den.
They shall not hurt or destroy
in all my holy mountain;
for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.
In that day the root of Jesse shall stand as an ensign to the peoples; him shall the nations seek, and his dwellings shall be glorious.

Here is this idyllic messianic king who will reign over the world and bring peace among the nations with justice and righteousness. This was the hope for the Jewish people – this messianic kingdom that God would someday deliver.

In the prophecy of Daniel 7 we have a very significant description of the deliverance of this kingdom to a human person. Daniel 7:13-14. In the other visions that Daniel sees, he sees images of beasts or combinations of beasts, but now he sees in verse 13 a human figure. In verse 13 of chapter 7, Daniel writes,

I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion
and glory and kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

Here is this human person presented before God to whom God delivers the kingdom and all authority over the peoples of the earth. This was the title that Jesus picked up on to describe himself as “the Son of Man.” Not just “a” son of man (a human being) but “the” Son of Man, with the definite article referring back to this prophecy in the seventh chapter of Daniel.

In the New Testament, the writings of the New Testament are pervaded with predictions of the Second Coming of Christ when he will return to establish his Kingdom over the earth. There are some 250 references in the New Testament to the return of Christ. Let’s look at a few of these, some of the most important.

Turn to Mark 13. This is Jesus’ so-called Olivet Discourse where he is seated with the disciples on the Mount of Olives and they ask him about the end of the world and the judgment. Then he gives this discourse on the end times.[7] Let’s read Mark 13:

And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down.”

And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple,

[They went from the Temple Mount across the Kidron Valley up onto the Mount of Olives looking across at the Temple Mount with Herod’s beautiful temple there at the summit.]

Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign when these things are all to be accomplished?” And Jesus began to say to them, “Take heed that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray. And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places, there will be famines; this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs.

“But take heed to yourselves; for they will deliver you up to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them. And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. And brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

“But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; let him who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything away; and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle. And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! Pray that it may not happen in winter. For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be. And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days. And then if any one says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. But take heed; I have told you all things beforehand.

“But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

“From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

“But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Take heed, watch; for you do not know when the time will come. It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch. Watch therefore—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning— lest he come suddenly and find you asleep. And what I say to you I say to all: Watch.”

In addition to this central passage in the Gospels on the return of Christ, we also find in the letters of Paul descriptions of this event which clearly echo the teachings of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse.[8] Look with me at 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:8. Paul writes to these Greek believers,

But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words.

But as to the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves know well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. When people say, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as travail comes upon a woman with child, and there will be no escape. But you are not in darkness, brethren, for that day to surprise you like a thief. For you are all sons of light and sons of the day; we are not of the night or of darkness. So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober. For those who sleep sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. But, since we belong to the day, let us be sober, and put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation.

Here Paul talks about this same event of the return of Christ and the in-gathering of the elect and the resurrection of the dead. He then ends with the same exhortation, “Watch, stay awake, be alert. You don’t know when this is going to happen.”

The final passage I would like to read from the New Testament is 1 John 3:2-3. John writes, “Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.” Here John says that when Christ returns we are going to be made like him. Then he gives again the exhortation, “In the meantime, purify yourself in the same way that Christ is pure.”

Let me say a word about the New Testament vocabulary for the return of Christ because there are a variety of words that are used to specify this event. The most common of these is the word parousia. For example, in 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 8 we have this word used. “Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him . . . And then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and his coming.” So parousia is often translated as the word “coming” or the “presence” of Christ – his appearing, his becoming present, or simply his coming.[9]

Another word that is used is apokalupsis. For example, this word is used in 2 Thessalonians 1:7. He speaks of granting “rest with us to you who are afflicted, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire.” The word apokalupsis is translated as “revelation” – the revealing of something. So Christ’s Second Coming is also referred to sometimes as the Apocalypse or the revealing of Christ when he comes again.

A third word is epiphaneia. This word is used in 2 Thessalonians 2:8 when Paul says, “the Lord Jesus will slay him [the lawless one] with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and his coming.” The parousia is the coming of Christ; epiphaneia is the appearing of Christ. This will often be translated by the English word “appearance.”

These are some of the principal words to refer to the Second Coming of Christ: parousia, apokalupsis, and epiphaneia. All are referring to this event when Christ will bodily and physically return to earth to establish decisively his promised Kingdom.


Question: Just a commentary. I’ve read that apokalupsis actually can also mean unveiling. There is a reference to the unveiling of a bride – the removal of a veil – to reveal the bride. I’ve also done a lot of research where we read that the book of Revelation is really the groom coming back for his bride. It is Jesus coming back for his church – the bride. So he comes for the marriage supper of the lamb.

Answer: Right. Although there the analogy would be a little bit reversed because there it is Christ who is being revealed rather than the bride, right? It is not the bride who is veiled. That is why the book of Revelation is very often called the Apocalypse. It is the Apocalypse. It is the revealing of Christ to the church. But your point is right. Another word (instead of “reveal”) is you could say “disclose.” You unveil or disclose something. That would be what an apocalypse would be.

Question: I’m happy to report that we agree on eschatology, OK? [laughter]. I just had one question. When you read from Mark 13 (which parallels Matthew 24), it mentioned that the generation that sees the fig tree bloom will be the generation that sees the end. Can you address that point? If that is somewhat literal?

Answer: This will be one of our major points in our outline that we will talk about in this class. This is the so-called Problem of the Delay of the Parousia. This is what scholars typically refer to regarding this problem. There are a couple of passages where Christ seems to indicate that this is going to happen during the lifetime of the disciples. We read one such verse where he says, “I say to you this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.”[10] There is another passage where he says, “There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man come in power.”[11] We will later deal with this Problem of the Delay of the Parousia.

Followup: [off-mic] Will you also address that some people believe that that actually refers to 1948? The rebirth of Israel.

Answer: I see. I understand. Yeah, we will look at various theories to try to see how those verses are best to be understood, and also the preterist view that these things in fact did take place prior to the death of the disciples. It took place in the first generation. So we will look at those views when we come to them.

What we want to do next time is take up the question, “Is there one Second Coming of Christ or are there more than one Second Coming of Christ?” Here we will talk about the so-called Rapture view as well as other views of the return of Christ which would say that Christ will not return simply once but more than once. That will be our subject for next time.[12]

[1] Dr. Craig is correct. There was a 9th century dispute between St. Paschasius Radbertus and a Benedictine monk named Ratramnus regarding the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

[2] 5:10

[3] 10:01

[4] 14:55

[5] 20:09

[6] 24:21

[7] 29:09

[8] 35:00

[9] 40:04

[10] cf. Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30

[11] cf. Matthew 16:28, Luke 9:27

[12] Total Running Time: 45:57 (Copyright © 2014 William Lane Craig)