God, Why Don't You Give Me a Call?

Dr. Craig: Hello, this is William Lane Craig. As we bring our spring campaign to a close, I'd like to encourage you to still partner with us in the work we're doing at Reasonable Faith. And as a gift of appreciation for your support, we'd love for you to have either one or two volumes of my Systematic Philosophical Theology. If you commit to $50 a month for a year, then you can choose one of these volumes. If you choose to donate at $100 a month for a year, then you can choose two of the volumes as your premium. So, this is the last chance to participate in the spring campaign and to get one or more of these volumes free of charge for your participation. Thank you for helping us to celebrate our 20th anniversary of Reasonable Faith, and we're all looking forward to what the Lord will be doing over the next 20 years.

Kevin Harris: Bill, we have some questions from all over the world that have come into Reasonable Faith and would like to get your input on. This says,

Dr. Craig, I recently listened to your Defenders series on the creation of life and biological diversity where you defend a mytho-historical view of early Genesis. I found myself tentatively persuaded by that position. One question that I had concerns the extraordinarily long lifespans in Genesis. While you briefly noted that the Ancient Near East genealogies often used exaggerated or symbolic numbers, I was hoping to hear more about why such numbers were used and how they might function literarily.

I recently read Carol Hill's article, “Making Sense of the Numbers in Genesis,” where she argues that early Mesopotamian cultures used a sexagesimal system in which numbers like 60 and 7 carried symbolic or sacred significance. She suggests that the patriarchal ages in Genesis may reflect this system. For example, figures like Adam's age can be expressed as combinations of these numbers, perhaps as a way of conferring honor or importance. And she also points to patterns in the recorded ages, such as recurring final digits in the absence of others that seem unlikely to be random, suggesting intentional numerical structuring. Do you find this kind of sacred number or symbolic numbering approach persuasive as an explanation for the Genesis lifespans? And if so, how might it fit with your broader mytho-historical reading of the text? And on a personal note, I've found this topic surprisingly difficult to discuss within the church without strong reactions. So I've appreciated your clarity and openness in addressing it. Brandon, US

Dr. Craig: Thank you, Brandon, for your kind remarks. If you look at my book, In Quest of the Historical Adam, you will find a fairly detailed discussion of Carol Hill's proposal and why I think it's not convincing. I think it's manufactured. And the fact of the matter is that despite a multiplicity of these symbolic or sacred numbering schemes, none of these has proved persuasive to the majority of scholars today.

The long lifespans of the antediluvians remains a mystery. We do not know the reason for it. Perhaps the best explanation that I've seen is simply that it's the way of the author’s emphasizing how deep into the historical past these persons go. And so he has these hyperbolic lifespans. But nobody really knows. That's the fact of the matter.

Kevin Harris: Next question.

Dear Dr. Craig, What exactly do people mean when they say that God speaks through the Bible or God speaks through XYZ? I am a Christian. I genuinely believe, on the basis of the evidence, that God exists and that he raised Jesus from the dead. But I read the Bible in the original languages like Hebrew and Greek every day, and I've never heard or sensed God speaking to me, although I would love it. I'd love for him to. Is God really speaking to people? And if so, why am I blind to it? I've prayed about this and I'm genuinely open to hearing from him, but I can't sense or hear anything. What am I missing? Thank you for your time. Sam, US.

Dr. Craig: I think many of us, Sam, have been troubled by the idiom among evangelical Christians that “God spoke to me” or “God told me” to do this or that or to go somewhere. I, like you, have not experienced that kind of communication from God. And when I have thought that God was speaking to me, sometimes I've been proved wrong about that.

So, I think what we're really talking about here is reading a passage of Scripture that suddenly seems especially meaningful to you in your situation. It can bring sudden encouragement or perhaps conviction. And I think that's what's meant by saying that “God spoke to me through the Scriptures.”

Kevin Harris: Next question.

Dr. Craig, Can God lie? If he can't, then why would he say there's a firmament if there isn't? Does it make me look silly for believing in that? And if the Bible is written by men but inspired through the Holy Spirit, then yet again, can God lie? People that were guided would have understood what it was the Holy Spirit wanted them to see. So if there is a firmament, then there is one. And let me guess, you believe the moon landing as well as the lie from the prince of the air. Dion, South Africa.

Dr. Craig: I don't know, Dion, what you mean by that last crack, but clearly God cannot lie. He is morally perfect and therefore tells the truth.

But God can use various literary forms to communicate his truth to us. So when the psalmist says, "Let the trees of the wood clap their hands before the Lord," is that a lie because trees don't have hands? In the book of Revelation, when it says there'll be a great red dragon and his tail will sweep away one-third of the stars, is that a lie because of that symbol? Not at all.

You shouldn't think that metaphors cannot be true. They are not literally true, but they do express a truth. And so with respect to Genesis chapter 1 and the firmament, I think that this is a metaphorical way of describing the heavens and the sun and the moon and the stars in the heavens.

And when you compare this to other ancient Mesopotamian literature that talks about a firmament, especially Babylonian literature, then it is perfectly clear that these statements are meant metaphorically rather than literally. If you want to see a demonstration of this at length, look at my book, In Quest of the Historical Adam, where I talk about the metaphorical and figurative nature of ancient mythology.

Kevin Harris: Got a question from Australia.

Dr. Craig, When can it be said that the disciples were first saved? On the first day of the resurrection week, John 20:21–22 records that Jesus breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.' Was this the baptism in the Holy Spirit or receiving the seal of the Holy Spirit? If it was the baptism in the Holy Spirit, then why was Pentecost necessary? Colin, Australia.

Dr. Craig: It seems to me that we should not look at the disciples through the rear-view mirror of Christian history. Rather, they would have been saved in the same way that Moses and Abraham and John the Baptist and other faithful Jews were saved.

In the case of Jesus' disciples, they were saved when they first placed their faith in Jesus, whenever that might have been.

Now, with respect to the story in John 20:21-22, John doesn't narrate Pentecost. That's found in the book of Acts. And so, he presents, as it were, here a sort of Johannine Pentecost to command the disciples to receive the Holy Spirit.

But notice that it doesn't say that this was the moment at which they received the Holy Spirit. Rather, this is Jesus' command, which he symbolized by exhaling, breathing, and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." And it seems to me that that Holy Spirit was received on the day of Pentecost, and that was the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Kevin Harris: Next question.

Dr. Craig, Why do you favor the kalam cosmological argument for God when the argument doesn't include a god in either the premises or the conclusion? Mark, US.

Dr. Craig: Because, Mark, the argument goes on to do an analysis – a conceptual analysis – of what it is to be a cause of the universe. And what you discover is that that cause must be an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal creator of the universe. And I think that's sufficient for a concept of God.

Kevin Harris: More kalam in this next question.

Dear Dr. Craig, Why does the kalam argument stop? Seems to me that once you agree that something cannot come from nothing, then we all agree there must be something eternal. This is the only way to break the eternal cause-and-effect chain. It also seems to me that this eternal thing can't be contingent or be compelled, which rules out an eternal universe or laws since they have no choice but to create. This leaves the only coherent option as something eternal that chooses to create. And the only reason to choose to create that is not contingent—no pride or boredom or self-interest—is love. So from the idea that something cannot come from nothing, doesn't that ultimately lead us to logically deducing an eternal loving creator that chooses to create? Shane.

I don't know what he means by “Why does the kalam argument stop?” I think he wants some more blanks filled in, I guess. I don't know.

Dr. Craig: Well, it's similar to the question that was just previously asked. What attributes of the first cause can we deduce by doing a conceptual analysis? And I think what Shane argues correctly is that this must be a personal mind which freely chooses to create. This is an argument that I adapted from the medieval Muslim proponent of the kalam cosmological argument, Al-Ghazali, and I think it's a very good argument for the personhood of the first cause.

But Shane wants us to deduce something about the moral qualities of the first cause. And there I've got hesitancy. I'm not so sure, Shane. I'm not ready to go out on a limb yet there. It seems to me that there could be other means or other motivations for creation than love. For example, suppose that the creator of the universe is morally evil and therefore creates creatures so that he could make their lives miserable and fill them with unhappiness. I'm not sure how you could rule that out on the basis of the kalam argument alone. I think you're going to need additional arguments, in particular the moral argument for God's existence, in order to deduce confidently something about the moral qualities of the uncaused first cause of the universe.

Kevin Harris: You'll have to put on your pastoral hat for this next question, Bill. It says,

Dear Dr. Craig, I'm a senior in college studying philosophy. The areas in which I do most of my work are not directly concerned with questions about God. But these questions come up in the courses from time to time. And through all of this, I've tried my best to approach such topics without bias. This has worked quite well, and I find I have a much livelier, much more vibrant sense of God's presence than I did before I started. However, I have begun to feel some distance between myself and my friends and relatives on spiritual matters. Not necessarily because the conclusions we draw are different, but perhaps because the ways we go about drawing them are different. It's almost as if we're speaking two different languages. I long for conversations about God that are simpler, more intuitive, but I find myself always complicating them unnecessarily. Do you have any advice on how I might occasionally take a break from the rigor of it all? How can I tap back into that basic pre-university perspective? Zayn.

Dr. Craig: I don't know you personally, of course, Zayn, and it may be the case that your faith has become overly academic or overly intellectualized. And I think there one needs to immerse oneself in the life of the church and in evangelism, to be worshiping God, to be fellowshipping with other believers who don't have your academic background, and particularly to be sharing your faith with non-believers and helping to bring them to a knowledge of Christ. I think that will do a great deal to enliven your spiritual life and to guard against this intellectual dryness that I think is a real danger of academic study.

Kevin Harris: Here's a similar question from the UK.

Dear Dr. Craig, I'm an 18-year-old boy from England who will be looking to study philosophy as a degree this coming September, largely thanks to your ministry and the engaging resources you create, as well as the content I engage in at A-Level Philosophy. However, as a Christian who is deeply interested in philosophy and apologetics, do you have any advice on my career path, one that you would recommend to a budding apologist?

I've read the “Advice to European Christian Apologists” page on Reasonable Faith. One thing mentioned was to study for a PhD, and I'm open to that ambitious idea of one day studying for a PhD. However, I'm mainly wondering, why would I spend years rigorously studying a subject to depths that seem unnecessary? I also don't see how it opens you up to evangelism. And as someone joining the Catholic Church at Easter, I've thought about seminary, but I know that it's likely not something you would advise primarily. Torren, UK.

Dr. Craig: Well, Torren, I think that it's important to understand that pursuing a PhD in philosophy is not primarily for the purpose of getting a job. Rather, this would have to be an expression of a deep passion that springs from within. It is only if you have that that you are likely to endure the rigors of doctoral research and complete it successfully. You don't want to be dropping out midway through because of academic burnout.

So if you don't find that passion in your breast for going deeper, studying more, then I wouldn't follow that advice. But if you do, then I think a PhD in philosophy can just open tremendous doors for you, as well as deepen your own worship and apprehension of God.

Going to those depths that seem unnecessary can help to make you a deeper, richer person. And I have found, because of my doctoral degrees, that I have gotten into situations that would be closed to the average Christian pastor or missionary.

For example, I remember speaking at one Swedish university, and during the Q&A time, one student asked me, "What are you doing here? Why are you here?" And I said, "Well, I've been invited to give this lecture." He said, "No, that's not what I mean. I want to know why you are doing this. Why are you motivated to do this?" And so I shared with him my testimony about how I came to know Christ and that this motivates me to share this message with university students. Well, at that point, the professor that was moderating the meeting broke in and said, "Well, that's not why we invited Dr. Craig." And I thought, "Oh no, what's he going to say?" He said, "We invited him because Dr. Craig is one of the leading scholars and philosophers of religion with degrees from the University of Birmingham under John Hick and the University of Munich under Wolfhart Pannenberg." And then he paused and he said, "These are great names, and we're privileged to hear from Dr. Craig today." And I just thought to myself, "Thank you, Lord." Those degrees opened up for me avenues to share my testimony that would never have been open to me before.

And we have found this to be true in communist countries like China, where the red carpet was rolled out for us as visiting academics, or in Muslim countries like Tunisia, where once again they welcomed me and gave me freedom to share about my faith in Christ.

So these academic degrees, if this should be God's will for you, can be tremendous door-openers for evangelism.^[1]