Questions on Buddhism, Scholarly Consensus, and Choosing the Right Church

KEVIN HARRIS: It’s Reasonable Faith with Dr. William Lane Craig. Thanks so much for listening. I’m Kevin Harris. Dr. Craig is always being asked about the so-called deconstruction trend that's been quite popular lately. “Deconstruction” means different things to different people, but it often means deconversion from one's faith. It can also mean a change in the majority of what one once believed. We all go through that in varying degrees, but I want to encourage you to listen to an upcoming podcast on this subject. An atheist YouTuber thinks Dr. Craig has deconstruction all wrong. So Dr. Craig responds. Again, that's coming up in the near future so watch for that podcast. And, please, if you can, support the work of Reasonable Faith with your prayers and financial support. Whatever you can give is so appreciated. You can give online at ReasonableFaith.org. Today we have some questions that people have sent to Dr. Craig at the Reasonable Faith website and to Facebook. So, Bill, let's get some answers from you. This first question says,

Dear Dr. Craig, It seems to me that the kalam cosmological argument falsifies Buddhism and Hinduism, at least in their most common historical forms since they both teach that the cosmos is eternal. The cosmos goes through periods of chaos and rebirth, but it is eternal nonetheless in this view. Have you discussed the kalam cosmological argument with any Buddhists and Hindus? If so, what was their reaction to the argument? Thank you. Steve, U. S.

DR. CRAIG: I agree with Steve that the kalam cosmological argument, if sound, invalidates pantheistic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism. While I've never had a debate or dialogue with a Hindu, I have done with a Buddhist. When I was speaking in Hong Kong at the University of Hong Kong I had a dialogue with a Buddhist monk, a woman in fact, and we discussed the arguments for God's existence. I think they fared very well. So take a look on YouTube and see if you can find this video of my debate with the Buddhist monk in Hong Kong.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question says,

Dear Dr. Craig, I'm teaching a class on the epistles of Timothy, and we just finished up 2 Timothy 3. We're taking a short detour and discussing the inspiration of Scripture since we covered 3:16. In preparing for the lesson I was thinking through the dictation theory and was wondering if this view would remove any need for reading a Scripture in context – “context” meaning the properties of the human author, place, time, audience, culture, etc. in order to draw out the meaning of the text. In my understanding the dictation theory of inspiration ultimately would require one to take the dictated words literally. So my question is: Would strict adherence to the dictation theory of the inspiration of Scripture remove any need for reading a passage in context? Joe, United States

DR. CRAIG: Clearly, reading a dictation does not remove the need for reading it in its literary context. You need to see the whole dictation in order to understand the meaning of a particular sentence. But I think Joe is talking here about the broader cultural context in which the dictation was given. And it still seems to me that that would be important for the interpretation of a dictation. The dictation might use vocabulary or expressions that one would need to know something about the society and the culture in order to interpret properly. As an example, just imagine that the Psalms were dictated. They would still be poetry and therefore not to be taken literally. So I don't think that there's anything about dictation that would remove the need for reading a narrative in both its cultural and literary context.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question.

Hi, Dr. Craig. I've been a long time follower of your online work, and I'm very grateful to you and the team at Reasonable Faith. I've been personally edified by your work, and as a youth pastor I am now teaching the evidence for the resurrection to the youth group at my church. One question I've always had is how one can determine the veracity of the claims that you, Habermas, and other resurrection scholars say about what “most scholars” believe about particular facts surrounding the resurrection. I mostly gather my information about the historical field of resurrection studies by listening to and believing Christian apologists. But to be able to check for myself what various scholars in the field say would be a great help to me. What way do you recommend that I confirm for myself the validity of the claim that most scholars agree on X fact? Again, thanks for your work, Dr. Craig. Trevor, U. S.

DR. CRAIG: In the case of Gary Habermas, he's given the bibliography. So you can simply read his bibliography of references and see that the vast majority of New Testament scholars who have written on the subject agree with the central facts undergirding the resurrection of Jesus. So the references are there to be consulted. Similarly in my own work, I will cite experts in the area who have a feel for the discipline. Those who are practitioners of the discipline usually have a good feel for whether or not a consensus or majority opinion exists. I don't simply say this on my own basis but will cite expert practitioners in the field. I've recently run into this in my current study of justification. I've seen a number of claims that the majority of New Testament scholars today agree that justification in the New Testament is a forensic declaration of righteousness. It is not a moral transformation of the person. Now, my confidence in that verdict is greatly increased when I see a number of independent scholars saying the same thing, especially scholars who belong to traditions like Joseph Fitzmyer, a Roman Catholic, which traditionally did not hold to a forensic view of justification. So it's simply a matter of reading the scholarly literature and seeing what the expert practitioners in the field say.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question.

Hi, Dr. Craig. With all the Protestant and evangelical churches who have well-educated professors in their seminaries who believe and teach the Bible, how can we have so many different denominations? And does that mean it's up to one's or one's denominational interpretation? No one has the mind of God. If one were all-knowing as God, that person would be God. So in light of these issues, does it really matter which church one goes to to worship? Husbands and wives don't even agree 100% on issues or things, so to think one could find a church he or she agrees with is unreasonable. Debbie, U. S.

DR. CRAIG: I think Debbie's quite right that biblical interpretation is not neutral but we come to the text with a theological framework which will help to determine how we read the text. So, for example, it is quite remarkable how Calvinists and Arminians read the same texts but in very different ways. One has to try as best one can to sort out the arguments in favor of the different interpretations and see which one is the most plausible. But you're never going to convince everyone. If one has a theological framework that determines your interpretation then that person is probably unlikely to jettison that theological framework. So the question that Debbie's asking here is: Does it really matter which church one goes to to worship? I think it matters which church you go to with respect to the central cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith. For example, I would not want her to attend a Unitarian church that denies the deity of Jesus Christ and the Trinity. But whether she goes to a Reformed/Calvinistic church or a Methodist/Arminian church in the Wesleyan tradition, I do think is a matter of indifference. I think that you can attend churches without having to sign on to the entire doctrinal position of that church. What counts is that the church affirms the core doctrines of Christianity, that the Gospel is faithfully preached from the pulpit, and that people are coming to worship and to draw near to God in the context of that church.

KEVIN HARRIS: This next question is from Norway.

Hello, Dr. Craig. I've listened to your lectures on the baptism and filling of the Holy Spirit. You mentioned that some people can be carnal Christians: living in the flesh but still saved. Yet when I read the Bible, the standard for salvation seems almost unachievably high, as if one must be nearly sinless to be saved. While verses on salvation through faith not works suggest that our actions don't impact salvation, this is both reassuring and troubling, especially as I struggle with sin and question if my faith is genuine based on my moral character. I'd appreciate any guidance on this. Thanks, Eric, Norway

DR. CRAIG: We certainly all struggle with sin. But I do not think that having sin in your life means that you're not saved. 1 John 1:8 and 9 says, “If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” So John recognizes that we have a struggle with sin and that we need to keep short accounts with God. The moment we sense that we have sinned and have displeased him, we need to confess it immediately, ask him to forgive us, and appropriate his moral cleansing and the power of the Holy Spirit to go on. I don't think that Eric needs to be emotionally bent out of shape over this. He simply needs to be practicing that Spirit-filled life of constantly confessing and reappropriating the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit and trusting him to produce gradually the Spirit's fruit in his life.

KEVIN HARRIS: A question from Nigeria.

Dr. Craig, there's been a rise in my country among young people proposing that we go back to the religion of our forefathers – the African traditional religion. This issue comes up as a rebuttal to evangelism when we Christians want to preach the Gospel to them. They claim these gods are mediums to reach the almighty God and hence we all worship the same God and they see Christianity as the white man's way to God. What would you give as a logical and philosophical answer to refute their arguments? What can help us present a good polemic to their claims and show that the African traditional religion and its claims aren't logically consistent nor true? Thank you. Chisum, Nigeria

DR. CRAIG: I take it that these African Nigerian religions are polytheistic and as such are incompatible with Jewish monotheism. So you have a logical contradiction right there. Now, if they do think that there is some more ultimate principle behind these polytheistic gods then we'd want to know about the character of this ultimate being and how he's revealed himself to us. What do you think of Jesus Christ? I think then the evidence for Jesus and the Gospels would show that Jesus has plausibly revealed to us the nature and will of this almighty God, how we should appropriately worship and serve him. It would be on that basis, I think, that one could give a logical and historical answer to refute the claim of these religious pluralists.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question.

Hello, Dr. Craig. I'm a 34 year old Christian from South Korea. Recently I've discovered that the Gospel of Mark is considered the least embellished and decorated among the four Gospels, that it is often introduced to firsttime believers. I came to believe that Mark would be the most reliable source of figuring out what had actually happened back then. From one of your podcast talks, I remember you once said that the accounts from Matthew regarding the empty tomb might contain metaphorical genre expression especially about an angel coming down from the sky. I assume this case would be applied to the Gospel of John and Luke as well. With that being said, I was surprised that the early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark did not contain chapter 16 verse 9-20. I have read your answer regarding this matter, but I still wonder why the Western text would leave out Mark 16:9-20 because it seems very crucial to Christian faith. I would appreciate it a lot if you could help me see things more clearly. Why do modern scholars consider Mark 16:9-20 actually happened? Tagene, South Korea.

DR. CRAIG: I think there's some misunderstanding here on the part of Tagene. There are different textual families of Greek manuscripts. The Western text that he refers to is one of those that includes verses 9 to 20 – the longer ending to Mark. The problem is that the earliest manuscripts of Mark (such as the Alexandrian family of texts) do not include that longer ending. So it appears that this was added on later by copyists who were troubled by Mark simply ending with verse 8. So it's not a matter of abbreviating the Gospel of Mark or taking verses away from it; it's rather that the original version of the Gospel of Mark, which as Tagene says is our earliest Gospel and very closely connected to the eyewitnesses, probably ended at verse 8 in the opinion of most Markan commentators.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question from England. It says,

Bless you, Dr. Craig. You've been instrumental in me finding Christ and apologetics. I like to know how to defeat this objection to inferences from the cosmological argument. You state that the cause of the universe must be personal because it must be beyond space and time, therefore it cannot be physical or material. Only numbers or minds fit this description. And as numbers can't cause anything, we are left with minds as the remaining option. However, minds are not able to bring material ex nihilo into existence any more than numbers are. Looking forward to your thoughts. Robert, England

DR. CRAIG: The argument from mind is to show the personhood of the first cause of the universe. It's not designed to show his omnipotence. So it would be the case that only a finite mind would be unable to bring material into being ex nihilo. But if the cause of the universe is enormously powerful, if not omnipotent, then that would be a mind which does have the capacity to create the universe from nothing. So the different attributes of this first cause are inferred from different arguments. We don't infer the omnipotence of the first cause from its being a mind. From that you would infer its personhood and immateriality. You infer its omnipotence or enormous power from the fact that it brought the universe into being without any material cause. I think that is the way in which one deduces these various attributes of the first cause.^[1]