Questions on Atonement, Platonism, and the Platinum Rule

KEVIN HARRIS: Hey there! Welcome to Reasonable Faith with Dr. William Lane Craig. I'm Kevin Harris currently deep in the woods of east Texas camping out right now. We've been having some really mild weather for this time of year but that's about to change, and it's going to be quite cold in a couple of days. Before we get to today's podcast, I want to remind you quickly that time is running short for the matching grant campaign that's going on right now. In case you haven't heard about it, any gift that you give will be doubled by a group of generous donors. Whatever you give – up to $250,000 – will be doubled. So double your impact right now. End of the year giving if you'd like. Go to ReasonableFaith.org. Give safely online right there and continue the ministry and work all over the world of Dr. Craig and Reasonable Faith. Thanks for being here, and thanks so much for giving.

Bill, lots of questions. Let's get to some of these. These are from all over the world.

Dear Dr. Craig, When was the atoning blood of the Lord shed? And what does shedding of blood mean? The Lord said, “It is finished” then he delivered his Spirit. I believe that the atonement work had been done, but the literal shedding of his blood didn't happen until after the Roman soldier pierced his side. Then blood and water came out.

This is from Ben in the United States.

DR. CRAIG: I would say to Ben that what is meant by the blood of Christ or the shedding of the blood means the death of Christ. It's a metaphor for Christ's physical death on the cross. So I do not think that the work of the atonement was done until Christ died. The animal sacrifices in the Old Testament had to be killed in order for the sacrifice to be efficacious, otherwise ancient Israel might have just practiced bloodletting. You just drain some of the blood out of the sheep or the goat and then scatter it on the altar. But, no, the animal had to be killed. Similarly, Christ had to die. That's what is meant by “the blood of Christ.” His death. So the atonement work was not done until he died. Otherwise, he could have come down from the cross without dying and would have achieved atonement.

KEVIN HARRIS: Yeah. Oh, and just looking at his question here, before the Roman soldier pierced his side, Jesus was scourged. There was plenty of shedding of blood prior to.

DR. CRAIG: Yes. I was a little surprised by that remark by Ben, but I think either way one is not appreciating that the blood of Christ isn't referring to the hemoglobin and blood cells that were coursing through his veins. It's referring to his death. That's what the blood of Christ is a metaphor for – the death of Christ.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question.

Dear Dr. Craig, What's a good resource for our high school kids who are being taught evolution. I'm not a Young Earth Creationist, but my child is having a hard time understanding, or I'm having a hard time explaining, that the early chapters of Genesis are mytho-history in their literary form. I don't want her to doubt the Bible but to understand that she doesn't have to check out when she's being taught these subjects. I'm afraid my explanations are giving her mixed signals. She thinks I'm telling her the Bible is true and isn't true at the same time. Any resources or books we can read with our kids would be appreciated. David in the United States.

DR. CRAIG: I don't know of anything on this subject to recommend, and I have really agonized over this question myself. Honestly, David, I have no good answer to it. I think that perhaps some progress could be made by not trying to get too technical with the children and telling them this is mytho-history and things of that sort but just explaining to them that not everything needs to be interpreted literally. Perhaps you could give them some examples from other places in the Bible like when the psalmist describes God as the sort of fire-breathing person coming down from heaven with smoke coming out of his nostrils, or when it said “Let the trees of the wood clap their hands before the Lord.” The psalmist didn't think trees had hands. This is figurative language. Similarly, in the book of Revelation you have a lot of symbolism and figurative language. So what you could tell the child perhaps is that in Genesis we have a lot of figurative language that is used here, and to prove this you could point out, for example, that the days in Genesis 1 seem to be figures of speech that don't mean just a 24-hour period of time. The primordial ocean – the pentateuchal author knew that that couldn't drain away in 24 hours. That would be an absolutely devastating event if he were to imagine these waters speeded up and draining in 24 hours. Contrast the narrative of the Flood in Genesis 7 when the flood of Noah returns the Earth to its primordial condition. He says it takes 150 days for the water to drain away, enough for the mountaintops to appear. And even then Noah can't exit. So the pentateuchal author knew that this would take a long time to drain. Similarly, when it says on day three “Let the earth bring forth vegetation and plants, fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind” we shouldn't imagine this being like a film run on fast forward or time lapse photography where the little plant pops out of the ground and grows up suddenly into a tree and bursts into flower and then the fruit pops out on it in 24 hours. This undoubtedly took a lengthy period of time. So explain that these are figures of speech, figurative language that don't need to be taken literally. Another great example would be that in Genesis 1 you have God as the creator of the entire universe – “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” – and yet in chapters 2 and 3 God is described in these very human terms, walking in the Garden in the cool of the afternoon, calling for Adam and Eve who are hiding from him in the bushes. You can explain to the child that this is clearly figurative language because the author has already told us that God is a transcendent being beyond the universe and not some sort of a humanoid entity. So that would be my best shot – not to get too technical in genre analysis and so forth but to just help him to understand that much of our language is metaphor and figures [of speech], and that is the case in these early narratives in Genesis.

KEVIN HARRIS: This question from Singapore.

Dear Dr. Craig, A short question if I may. Heavy Platonism. Can I simply answer the issue of absolutes being non-co-eternal with God by just replying that they are contingent objects and only present starting at the moment of creation? Apologies to address something you may have already written about in depth. William in Singapore

DR. CRAIG: Well, William is asking here about the reality of abstract objects like mathematical objects, numbers, sets, functions, and so forth. Honestly, William, I don't think there's any hope of saying that these things are contingent objects that were created by God. Things like numbers seem to be necessary and arithmetic truths seem to be necessarily true even in a world in which the universe was never created. There would still be “1” God and “3” would be the number of persons in the Trinity. When you've got that, you've generated the whole number series. So it seems to me that we've got no recourse but to say that these mathematical truths are necessary truths, and therefore if they carry ontological implications (which I deny that they do) we would be stuck with saying these objects exist co-eternally and necessarily along with God.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question from India.

Hello Dr. Craig. Can you please share your thoughts on the Platinum Rule? The Golden Rule is “due unto others as you'd have them do unto you.” The Platinum Rule is to “do unto others as they would want done unto them.” Corporates are teaching employees to adapt to this saying that this is superior to the Golden Rule. I am struggling to understand how, as a Christian, I should respond to it. I may accept it as a variant at the workplace, but as something superior makes me very uncomfortable as it puts the words of our Lord Jesus at a lower significance. Rakesh in India

DR. CRAIG: Well, I am just stunned to hear from Rakesh that this is being taught in the corporate world. I think this principle is mad. Think about it. Do to others as they would want done to them. That is a prescription for indulgence and selfishness – just giving somebody whatever he wants – which is crazy. That often would lead to a great evil when a person wants to indulge in evil things, or stealing from the corporation. How about that? Or giving a person a promotion who doesn't deserve it. Is that really the way you're going to run your corporation? Giving to people what they want done to them? That's mad. I'm just amazed, Rakesh, that this would be propounded in your corporate life. It's clearly untenable and would wreak havoc in corporate life if it were actually followed.

KEVIN HARRIS: This next question.

Hello, Dr. Craig. First I want to thank you for your dedication and ministry. It was one of your lectures on the moral argument that solidified my decision to give my whole life to Christ. Second, I am a college student taking a class on the philosophy of religion. After reading what all our textbooks had to say about Christianity, I became concerned as it grossly mischaracterizes the faith. This is even to the point that central beliefs about Christ and the Holy Spirit are plainly incorrect as well as strange claims like that God is at times a “she.” When I brought this concern to my professor, who himself is a declared materialist and illusionist, he said that if I could provide a quality alternative source on Christianity (so long as it isn't apologetic) he would consider using it instead. First, could you recommend such a source? And, second, do you have any advice for a Christian student trying to minister to an atheist professor? Amara in the United States.

DR. CRAIG: Well, I would say to Amara that perhaps C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity would be a classic source that he might be willing to assign the class to read. It certainly has enormous cultural credibility and significance. Now, perhaps he would think that's too apologetic, but then perhaps a book like John Stott's book Basic Christianity would be more neutral and descriptive of Christian doctrinal beliefs. So you might look at that. John Stott, Basic Christianity. As for trying to minister to an atheistic professor, my advice is don't try to convince your professor. Instead, I would emphasize being a good student, being diligent, asking questions, being industrious, doing “A” quality work in your class. That's the strongest testimony I think that you could bear to this man – to treat him respectfully with the kind of dignity that a professor deserves even if you disagree with him profoundly.

KEVIN HARRIS: One more point on this question. He says that it's a strange claim that God is at times a “she.” Bill, how would it play in that God really doesn't have a gender per se, and I wonder what he's referring to there?

DR. CRAIG: Well, this is just political correctness. I even sometimes see Christian philosophers referring to God as “she” in order to show their inclusivism and how politically correct they are. I agree with Jordan Peterson that this sort of thing is just nonsense. We, as Christians, should follow the model of the Lord Jesus who regarded God as his heavenly Father and taught us to pray “Our Father, who art in heaven.” You're right that God has no gender. He's not a sexual being, and so he's neither male nor female. But Jesus encourages us to relate to God under the metaphor of father because a father in the Jewish patriarchal culture was the head of the family and therefore connotes authority which properly belongs to God. But then also parental affection and love as God loves us as his children. This is a wonderful metaphor for God that we should not let go of under the pressures of political correctness.

KEVIN HARRIS: Question from the UK.

Hi, Dr. Craig. I was wondering where you stand on the Five Ways of Aquinas. Which, if any, of the Five Ways do you accept and why? Which do you reject and why? Thank you. James from the United Kingdom

DR. CRAIG: I would say, James, that all of these arguments are now outmoded and need to be rehabilitated in our own day and age. So I wouldn't propound any of them as they stand. But I do think that there are sound versions of the argument from contingency, the argument for design, the argument from moral values, all of which were part of the Five Ways. But the project of natural theology is one that needs to be renewed every generation to bring it up to date and to interact with contemporary secular thought. So we can't just stick with the proofs of Thomas Aquinas. These need to be rehabilitated and brought up to date.

KEVIN HARRIS: This is from Guatemala.

God bless you. I've been pleased to write a message to you because I have a question that my professors at my university claim when defending the historicity of Jesus. One of their answers when presenting Tacitus and Josephus is the following. 1. Tacitus only received rumors from Christians at the time of writing The Annals, and that is not reliable since he also mentions procurator and not the true position of Pontius Pilate. 2. Josephus is not trustworthy since it was the interpolations created by the Christians, and they also mentioned that there is no proof that the apostles of Jesus existed. In the end I don't know what I can do to defend Christ. Roberto in Guatemala

DR. CRAIG: What Roberto needs to do is to begin to read to better educate himself so that he can respond to the professor. I hope that he'll take this opportunity of confronting questions that he cannot answer and use it as an incentive to become better informed about these things. I would recommend that he take a look at the book by R. T. France (spelled like the country France), The Evidence for Jesus. This is a wonderful book on the evidence for Jesus including a discussion of these extra-biblical sources like Tacitus and Josephus. I would agree that the evidence of Tacitus is not very powerful because we don't know where Tacitus got these reports from. He could well have simply received reports from Christians. So we don't know if these sources were reliable. But as part of a cumulative case, Tacitus does count for something. You have here a good Roman historian which accords with all of the other evidence that we have for Jesus of Nazareth. As for Josephus, the professor here is simply uninformed when he thinks that the interpolations invalidate the testimony of Josephus to the person of Christ. I think that by far most scholars today will say that even though the passage was doctored by later Christian copyists that when you remove those emendations that there is a testimony of Josephus to the person of Jesus – that he was a teacher and wonder-worker who was then crucified in Palestine and that his followers continue to worship him. He also talks about the brother of Jesus – James – and how he was martyred by the Jewish Sanhedrin during the AD 60s. So Josephus’ testimony is very impressive. Take a look at R. T. France’s discussion of it. As for proof of the apostles, the best that I could recommend here is in John Meier’s book A Marginal Jew. Meier just recently passed away. He was one of the giants of historical Jesus scholarship. In one of his volumes of A Marginal Jew he has a wonderful discussion of whether or not there were in fact twelve apostles who followed Jesus. He gives, I think, a very convincing case for the historical facticity of the twelve apostles based on things like multiple, independent, early attestation and so forth. So that also is very well-grounded and can be found in the work of John Meier, A Marginal Jew.

KEVIN HARRIS: Question from Brazil.

Dear Dr. Craig, Why doesn't God give us an infinite amount of time to accept Jesus Christ? Why is it only on average during a 75-year lifespan? Zhao.

DR. CRAIG: Well, think about it. If God gave you an infinite amount of time for people to come to faith in Christ then justice would never be done for those who refuse to believe in Christ and who reject God. They would never receive their just dessert because it would go on for infinity. So we would not live in a moral universe. God would ultimately be unjust. Sin would go unpunished, and we would ultimately live in an immoral universe. So that, I think, is untenable. Now, as for the second question: Why is it only a 75-year time span? I don't know of course the answer to that, but here's a possibility. It's possible that God gives to every person adequate time to come to a free decision to follow God, to believe in God or Christ, and that God knew if he were to give that person more time that it wouldn't do any good. So no one would die who, if he lived say ten days longer, would have come to know Christ. But because he didn't live longer, he dies. It's possible that God in his providence has given everybody sufficient evidence to believe in him, and he knew that if that person's life were prolonged it wouldn't do any good.

KEVIN HARRIS: A couple of more questions.

Dear Dr. Craig, I've heard it said that God loves us so much that Jesus would have died for you even if you had been the only one that needed to be saved. Is this true? Can we confidently say what God would do under different circumstances? I have trouble knowing what I would do under different circumstances let alone knowing what another person such as God would do. Mateo from the United States

DR. CRAIG: Mateo's modesty is becoming, but in the case of God we know something about God's essential moral character and we have Scripture as well. That can give us some grounds for speculating about what God would do in different circumstances. Suppose that there's a possible world in which you are the only person that God has created and that you fall into sin. Wouldn't God love you so much that he would do something that would provide a way of salvation for you? It wouldn't necessarily need to be the death of Christ, but it could be some other sort of atonement that he would give. I'm inclined to think that that's true. God is so loving that even if you were the only person alive he wouldn't just abandon you. That would not be consistent with his grace and his love. Paul says that, “I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me.” He makes it very individual – not that he loves “us” and gave himself for “us” (which is true), but Paul says he loved “me” and gave himself for “me.” That's a staggering thought, isn't it? Yet, it does incline me to agree with people who say that even if you were the only person alive that God would have done something to save you.

KEVIN HARRIS: This is the final question today. Bill, if there was ever a question that's going to require you to put on your pastoral hat, this is it. It says,

Dear Dr. Craig, I wish I had read your answer to question #327 in the Q&A section, “In Love with a Non-Christian”^[1] before I got married. I can tell from how my husband talks about everything but God that his commitment is not authentic. Now that I've ruined my life by marrying someone who is a non-believer and therefore not God's will for my life and having wandered off the trajectory that God has in mind for me and so missing all that he has in store for me, now what? Anonymous from the United States.

DR. CRAIG: Yeah. Wow. My heart just goes out to this woman. This is such an agonizing plea. I think what I would remind her of is this. We have all strayed off the trajectory that represents God's perfect will for us. We all sin. Therefore, none of us is on the path that we might call God's plan A for our lives. But fortunately God has a plan B and a plan C and a plan D for your life. And God's plan for her life begins right now. He has a plan for her that includes being married to this non-believing husband. So it is that plan that she needs now to fully actualize by being a wife to this man who is respectful and supportive and virtuous and does the things that a Christian wife does, and that is God's will for her now that she needs to focus on. God in his foreknowledge knew that she would be disobedient and would marry this non-Christian, and he didn't prevent it. He allowed her to stray from his perfect will in this respect, but knowing that he had a plan for her life that will bring some good even out of this tragic circumstance. And who knows? Her husband is not static in his existence. He's in process, too. It may well be that he will come to faith. 1 Peter gives advice to first century Christian women who are married to non-believing husbands, and he encourages them to be faithful so that when the husband sees the circumspect and proper behavior of their wives he says they might be won without a word over to belief in Christ.^[2] They don’t need to evangelize him. They don’t need to preach at him. But he says even without a word these unbelieving husbands might be won to Christ. So don’t give up yet. Don’t think your life is over. It may be that your husband will come to faith in Christ and that you will have a wonderful Christian marriage in the end.^[3]