Questions on Eternity, Apostolic Authority, and Prayer

Dr. Craig: Hello! This is William Lane Craig. Credible sociological surveys have revealed an unexpected resurgence of openness and interest among students in the existence of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. More than any other Christian ministry, I believe that Reasonable Faith is strategically positioned to supply the evangelistic and discipleship tools to help further this young generation.

During the last year, we’ve continued to produce our animated videos. We have a wonderful series of videos on the existence of God and the evidence for Jesus. And now we’re producing an ongoing series on the attributes of God—just releasing the video on divine omniscience, and the next one to come out will be on divine omnipotence.

We’ve also got a new Equip course on the atonement and have developed an app so that you can download these courses and access them easily using your mobile device. We have now over 255 local Reasonable Faith chapters all around the world—from Europe to Nepal to Australia to Muslim countries. And these chapter directors who lead these studies are vetted, qualified people—extraordinarily talented, committed to the task of worldwide evangelism and discipleship.

All of this is undergirded by my years of scholarly research which is bearing fruit now in my five-volume Systematic Philosophical Theology. I am currently working on the final volume. It is this sort of depth that undergirds our popular-level material for student and lay audiences that helps to make Reasonable Faith so effective and so strategic in reaching this younger generation.

This fall, we’re having our annual matching grant campaign. A group of donors is donating $250,000 to match your donation to Reasonable Faith given between now and the end of the year. Dollar for dollar, every gift will be matched up to $250,000, and this will put us in a good position for beginning the new year.

So, I hope you’ll give prayerful consideration to including Reasonable Faith among the Christian ministries and charities that you support. Thank you so much for your interest and for your support in this strategic ministry.

===

Kevin Harris: We have some questions from all over the world that we’ve received at our website hoping to be question of the week. Not everybody makes that. You can check out the question of the week on our website. And we have some questions that have come across Facebook, so we will look at some of those. This first question is:

Dear Dr. Craig, I’m an international high school student fascinated by philosophy and Christian apologetics. I greatly admire your articulate defense of theism and your work in philosophy, including but not limited to the kalam. I’ve been thinking about the contingency argument a lot lately, and I’m wondering if it can be seen through a naturalistic lens. Given the premises of the contingency argument hold true, then by definition, God, an all-powerful being transcending the temporal dimension, exists. I wonder if this necessary God may be conceived as a timeless and spaceless meta-universe which is able to generate infinitely many universes, given it transcends the temporal realm. Its act of creating infinitely many universes may be the default state of existence that does not require purposeful choice to act. I find this view to be compatible with a naturalistic explanation of our existence. I would deeply be grateful to hear your thoughts on this idea and any challenges you see to it. Thank you for your time and your contribution.

And by the way, Leo, who wrote that question, is from China.

Dr. Craig: Well, I would say that when Leo wants to talk about “a timeless and spaceless meta-universe,” that that is either an incoherent description or it is simply God by another name. Often people will postulate entities that are really just God under a different description. But if this entity is literally timeless and spaceless, then it cannot be a meta-universe, because a meta-universe is a physical reality that is in both time and space. So, taken literally, it is positing an incoherence as the metaphysically necessary being. If you loosen up the description, then it really is, I think, just a description of God under another name.

Kevin Harris: Next question.

Dear Dr. Craig, thank you for your latest work, A Systematic Philosophical Theology. I’ve been reading it to and from my work as a secondary school religious education teacher. While converted as a Protestant, I’ve been teaching in a Catholic school, and I’m finding their picture of authority in the church increasingly persuasive. I appreciated your engagement with Catholic claims about Scripture in De Scriptura Sacra. However, you use a mere footnote to rebut Catholic claims about the authority of sacred traditions. I find this a bit dismissive. You yourself accept the authority of tradition in section 1.5.2.2, where you say that the authority of the Jesus tradition which he delivered is evident in his words, “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you.” Don’t you think it’s possible that elements of this great and authoritative Jesus tradition were not written down? Isn’t it likely that the apostles passed on practices and decisions that were not written down, for example, sanctifying Sunday in light of the resurrection rather than Saturday, or about the practice of infant baptism? Why should we not accept that these practices and traditions, which can also fairly be described as teachings, are part of God’s revelation to us? And finally, you say that there is no scriptural warrant for the notion of apostolic tradition or the teaching authority of the church. And yet the very verses you quoted from Matthew 16:18–19 clearly testify to a unique authority given to Peter and the apostles as a group. Moreover, the practice of the laying on of hands clearly is used as a way of passing on authority, though I’m not sure if that authority loses its apostolicity in transmission. Best wishes in Christ. Mark in England.

There is a lot to break down in that question, Bill.

Dr. Craig: Yes, there is a lot to dissect here. I have to confess that I am skeptical of these claims on the part of the Catholic Church about the authority of sacred tradition. I find nothing in Scripture that would warrant the inference that ecclesiastical tradition is going to be authoritative. Matthew 16:18–19 is talking about the authority to forgive and remit sins. There is nothing there that suggests that there is going to be a teaching authority that is going to be passed on in the church.

Moreover, I have to say that the fact that the tradition is often mistaken suggests that ecclesiastical tradition is not authoritative. In the early church, one synod would overturn routinely the pronouncements of a previous synod. There are several doctrines, I think, that you can show were widespread in the early church that are not biblical, and therefore the tradition sometimes gets it wrong and therefore is not authoritative.

Now, Mark mentions the authority of the Jesus tradition. Yes, the words of Jesus himself had a sort of divine authority and therefore served the early church as a norm for Christian teaching. But when Mark speculates, “Isn’t it likely that the apostles passed on practices and decisions that weren’t written down? Why shouldn’t we accept that these practices and traditions are part of God’s revelation to us?” I am sure there was oral tradition that was passed on. No doubt about that. But because they were not written down, how do you know what the content of these is? There is no basis for thinking that later ecclesiastical tradition is the content of these unwritten oral traditions from the apostles. There are just no grounds for believing that these are divinely revelatory.

So it seems to me that the Scriptures are the only communication that God has given us that is divinely inspired and therefore absolutely authoritative. I think that we can consult ecclesiastical tradition as the accumulated wisdom of fellow Christians over the centuries, and therefore not to be dismissed or taken lightly, but certainly not having an authority comparable to that of Scripture.

Kevin Harris: Bill, this next question is from a pastor in Maryland. He asks, “How do the Yunxian skulls impact your theory of human origins?” You will have to tell us what those are.

Dr. Craig: What he is talking about are some recent discoveries of human remains in China that are very old — could have belonged to Homo erectus. It does not impact my theory of human origins at all. My view is that Neanderthals, Homo sapiens, and Denisovans are descended from a human ancestor, which I provisionally and tentatively identify as Homo heidelbergensis. That would be consistent with the humanity of these Yunxian skulls.

Kevin Harris: This next question is from a former student from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He says,

Dr. Craig, would it be acceptable to refer to God’s middle knowledge as God’s knowledge of all hypothetical realities? I’m trying to teach on Molinism, but students are getting hung up on the “middle” terminology. PBR, U.S.

Dr. Craig: Yes, PBR. I think that is perfectly acceptable. In my own popular-level presentations, I have sometimes referred to God’s middle knowledge as God’s hypothetical knowledge. Then you need to explain that it would be his hypothetical knowledge of what anybody would freely do in any circumstances God might place him in. I think that should be clear enough for students to grasp. So yes, I think that is fine.

Kevin Harris: Here are some questions from Facebook.

Dear Dr. Craig, I try to have a prayer time in the morning before work, but sometimes I find myself in a rush and decide to pray in the car on the way to my job. I wonder if this is not a good spiritual discipline. Perhaps God would rather have my undivided attention rather than while driving. Do you think God is less concerned with where I pray and more concerned with the attitude of my heart? Crystal, Atlanta.

Dr. Craig: Crystal, I think the Lord is far more concerned with the attitude of your heart than where you pray. While it is great to have time set apart to focus on the Lord and really go to him in prayer, if you are in a rush, yes, pray in the car or in some other venue. Absolutely talk to the Lord at any time. I think it is just fine. Work it in as you can.

Kevin Harris: I was anxious to hear how you answered that because I find myself praying in the car all the time. OK, I will pray in the car. Next question.

Dear Dr. Craig, I’m attending the University of Texas and taking a philosophy class. The professor encourages class discussion, and I’m embarrassed by a fellow Christian who speaks up often. He is very preachy in his comments in class and rather obnoxious. I feel like I should say something to him, but I don’t want to discourage his attempts to share his faith. The professor is agnostic, and I think he enjoys Christians making fools of themselves, so he lets the guy rant. Any advice? Stuart, Austin.

Dr. Craig: This is really a difficult situation. I would not worry about discouraging this fellow Christian’s attempts to share his faith. What I would worry about is that he will not listen to you if you try to talk to him. He will think you are trying to shut him down. In a case like this, I think probably the best thing Stuart could do would be to provide some sort of counterbalance to this obnoxious Christian by contributing to the class discussion in an intelligent and helpful way, perhaps even disagreeing with his fellow Christian and trying to offer a better point of view. I think that would be the better tactic, to try to show the other class members and the professor that Christians are able to interact capably and calmly with the material rather than just preach.

Kevin Harris: By the way, I have been on the University of Texas campus many times and love it there, but I can vouch for Stuart. There are some obnoxious people there. This next question:

Dear Dr. Craig, this is my freshman year at Iowa State, and I’m looking for a Christian organization to join. I recently attended a group that offers fellowship and discipleship for students. However, I have reservations. First, they are very big into accountability. When one joins, one is assigned two or three older students who constantly check up on you to make sure you are doing your devotions and avoiding sin. They even put restrictions on who their members date and insist they only date other members of the group. The group seems orthodox, but I think they are extreme in their discipleship tactics. Is this a red flag? Thank you. Ryan.

Dr. Craig: Yes, I think this is a red flag, Ryan. The idea that they would put restrictions on the members so that they can only date other members of the group sounds positively cultic. You want to avoid this sort of heavy authoritarian emphasis. You might try to look into a local church to join, where you would be involved in Sunday worship and then in a college-age group that would be available through the church. That might be better than one of these student-led organizations.

Kevin Harris:

Dear Dr. Craig, I’ve been reading comments from people talking about undesigned coincidences in the New Testament. They mention a couple of examples that I find impressive. Is there anything to this whole thing, or is this not something to be pursued? Jeff, Branson, Missouri.

Dr. Craig: I would agree with you, Jeff, that there are a couple of examples of undesigned coincidences between the Gospels, or the letters of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles, that I think do testify to the historical credibility of the narratives. I find many of the examples not so impressive, however. They are not always that clear. This certainly is part of the evidence, part of a cumulative case, to be pursued. But I don’t think that, taken by itself, it is as strong as some of its proponents seem to think.

Kevin Harris: This next question is from Turkey.

Hello, Dr. Craig. I’ve read many articles on the subject of infinity and time. In this context, I’m curious whether an alternative theistic hypothesis regarding the infinite future and time is possible. Furthermore, I’m also curious about the position to which this alternative would lead us concerning the infinite past and time. An alternative conception of heaven. A common belief regarding heaven claims that heaven possesses a temporal structure similar to the A-theory, just as in the physical world. What I refer to as the alternative view is this: life in heaven is a timeless and infinite existence in the sense of uniting with God, becoming one with God. We can apply this to hell as well, and so on. In this conception, the fact that heaven is infinite does not imply the existence of successive temporal events. On the contrary, there exists a timeless and infinite happiness, similar to the way God was both infinite and timeless prior to creating the universe. If this is the case, objections concerning the infinite future and time, for example from Oppy, Malpass, Morriston, Cohen, and others, may lose their force because in this theistic conception there are no distinct moments comprising an infinite future. Consequently, there is no situation in which the theist can be accused of inconsistency. What are your thoughts on this? Kemal, Turkey.

Dr. Craig: What Kemal is referring to is the objection that certain persons have to the kalam cosmological argument that if the past cannot be beginningless, then the future cannot be endless. So if the arguments for the finitude of the past are sound, that would also prove the finitude of the future. This objection does absolutely nothing to undermine the kalam cosmological argument itself. But it would be unacceptable to many proponents of the argument who believe in the immortality of human beings beyond the grave. Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe that we will live forever.

So what Kemal is suggesting is that you could just say that the afterlife is an eventless, static, changeless state of existence with God so that it does not involve temporal process or a series of events. I would say, yeah, you could say that, but that would not be an acceptable solution to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. We believe in the resurrection of the body. The idea of a timeless, static resurrection body, frozen into immobility like a mannequin, is a contradiction in terms.

So while this hypothesis proposed by Kemal would eliminate the philosophical objection, you could eliminate it just as easily by denying immortality altogether. But if you want to affirm immortality for theological reasons, then the question will be what form does that immortality take, and for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, it takes the form of the resurrection of the body which implies that temporal process will characterize the afterlife.

===

Kevin Harris: Hey, it’s Kevin Harris. We’ve put together a brand new resource called The Daily Defender. It’s a 31-day reader based on Dr. Craig’s Defenders class. Each day provides a scripture, walks you through a short reading about who God is—his attributes, his greatness, his love—and it ends with a short prayer for reflection. I don’t know about you, but personally I have found that resources like this really keep me on track in the spiritual disciplines and my personal walk with God. There are so many distractions in our lives. That’s why prayer apps and things like that have become very popular. We’re really excited about the Daily Defender because you not only get that extra boost in your daily prayer and study, but you get the benefits of Dr. Craig’s lifelong work and ministry. It will strengthen your faith and your understanding of God one day at a time. Download the Daily Defender for free at ReasonableFaith.org/dailydefender and follow along with thousands of others throughout this month and even beyond. It’s our way of saying thank you and giving back to the community. So we hope you’ll join us in reading the Daily Defender this month. Download it from the website.^[1]