Questions on Miracles, Sports, and Medicine

KEVIN HARRIS: It’s Reasonable Faith with Dr. William Lane Craig. Glad you’re here! I’m Kevin Harris. Remember as we come up on the end of the year that you can have your donation to Reasonable Faith doubled. Some donors have gotten together and will match whatever you give up to $250,000. We've been blessed to have this opportunity for several years now. We call it the Matching Grant Campaign. So please give what you can before the end of the year and whatever amount you give will be doubled in the Matching Grant. Thank you for helping us spread the love and good news of Jesus using Dr. Craig's unique gifts that God has given him. Give online at ReasonableFaith.org. Let's go to the studio as Dr. Craig answers some of the questions that he's received. Question from India,

Dr. Craig, My question is on the miracles of Jesus. When Jesus did miracles as we read in the Gospels, he did it by himself. But when we read Acts 2:22 it says God did miracles through Jesus. So it kind of goes against the Gospels and gives the opportunity for heretics and non-Christians to put Jesus on the same level as Moses. I hope you respond. Thanks for everything you do. John, India

DR. CRAIG: It's disputed among Christian theologians whether Jesus wrought his miracles and exorcisms in his own power as the divine Son of God or whether he did it through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit who anointed him. I know Christian theologians on both sides of that debate. I think it's one that probably cannot be settled exegetically. It seems to me this is one where it's just a matter of preference, and therefore I prefer not to take a firm stand on this. Whether Jesus performed the miracles through his own divine power or whether he deferred to and allowed the Holy Spirit to work miracles through him – either way the deity of Jesus does not depend upon his miracles and exorcisms. These were simply signs to the people of the in-breaking of God's Kingdom in his purpose, and his resurrection from the dead was God's vindication of Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom of God in his person.

KEVIN HARRIS: This question said,

Dr. Craig, Is it logically consistent to be a Christian theist and be a subjectivist who believes that objective moral values do not exist? Why or why not? Mark, US

DR. CRAIG: I don't think it is logically consistent, Mark. It seems to me that a Christian theist has to be committed to the objectivity of moral values because he believes that God is good. God is the Supreme Good. He is morally perfect. Therefore, there are objective moral goods which are paradigmatically displayed in God.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question,

Dear Dr. Craig, I'm a student at Baylor University, and I'm in a world religions class. My professor brings in many guest speakers from other religions. Some of these people have been the most kind, thoughtful people I know. My question is: Why do these people from other religions seem to display the fruits of the Spirit if the Holy Spirit is only for Christians? John 13:35 says that people will know that you are my disciples if you have love for one another. Why is it that I see so much love from devout Hindus, Buddhists, etc.? Is there any biblical explanation for this? Thank you so much. I appreciate your work more than you know. Anders, United States

DR. CRAIG: I guess I would say there's just a sociological explanation for why certain persons in non-Christian religions are decent and loving human beings. They probably come from good families. They've been taught objective moral values. They've been raised in a loving home. So they have well-balanced, emotionally stable personalities that display these various virtues. The fact that the Holy Spirit can produce these virtues in our lives as a result of his conforming us to the image of Christ isn't to say that that's the only way in which a person can develop or display these virtues. Therefore, there's simply no need to think that everyone who belongs to a non-Christian religion is without virtue.

KEVIN HARRIS: OK. Next question,

Dr. Craig, Thank you very much for all you do to defend the faith given to us by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I wanted to ask you a question regarding Jesus increasing in wisdom (Luke 2:40), increasing in wisdom and stature (that's also Luke 2:52), and the fact that he learned obedience from the things which he suffered (Hebrews 5:8). Clearly this must be understood through the distinction between his human and divine nature. However, I wanted to ask if Jesus more likely learned through attrition (the increasing of knowledge via addition of new information) or whether he more likely learned through recollection (his human nature remembering things over time which he already knew as God). How would you respond? Thank you very much for your time, and may God bless you. Carter, United States

DR. CRAIG: This is a really interesting question, although I think Carter has got the terminology wrong here. I don't think he means learning through attrition – attrition is subtracting things, and Jesus wouldn't increase in knowledge by having things subtracted from his store of knowledge. Rather, he's talking about Jesus learning by the addition of new knowledge through his sensory experience of the world or, he says, did he really learn through recollection? A sort of platonic model of the soul. Plato, you may recall, thought that we never really learn anything new. Rather, our souls come into the world with a stock of innate knowledge which we have forgotten, and knowledge is just recollecting the innate knowledge that we have subconsciously but that we have forgotten. One could imagine a model of Jesus having knowledge by recollection of what the Logos already knew, but I don't think that gives a very convincing presentation of the life of Jesus. Certainly, Jesus would learn things through sensory experience that would not already be in the Logos like “I am here in this room” and “This is how a lamb tastes” or things of that sort. I think that there will be sensory knowledge that Christ would accumulate throughout his life that would be genuinely new and learned. So I do think he would increase in this sort of non-propositional knowledge even if, as the divine Logos, he already has all propositional knowledge.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question,

Dear Dr. Craig, I have followed your work for a long time and have thoroughly enjoyed watching your Defenders classes online. They have greatly enriched my faith and my understanding of Scripture, so I am most grateful. A major challenge I have in studying different doctrines such as creation or the end times is the multiplicity of views there are. It is so discouraging to think that no matter how much time I devote to studying these issues, the chance I will discern the correct interpretation is remote, especially when the experts and the scholars themselves have such different perspectives. As a veteran in this field, I would really appreciate your advice on how to approach these issues so as not to feel overwhelmed, and how to settle on a particular view. After all, I just want to understand what the Bible is saying. Thomas, UK

DR. CRAIG: I think that in answer to Thomas I would say very much the same thing that I said in response to an earlier question; namely, that what we have in the Bible is clear on the essential truths of coming to know God and the plan of salvation, but beyond that there's a whole lot that we will probably never have firmly in hand. So the best thing you can do is to have some trusted mentor who can guide you in your study. I would recommend, for example, a book like Bruce Milne's book, Know the Truth, which will give you the different perspectives on these doctrinal issues held by different confessions like Roman Catholic, Reformed, Lutheran, Wesleyan, and so forth. A book like that can be very useful at least in laying out the range of options. I think that's more important than coming to settle your mind on exactly which options you prefer. So I just wouldn't get overly exercised about this. I think that we will be forever searching, forever questioning, forever exploring in this finite life, and it's just not that important that we come to hard and fast positions on many of these doctrinal issues.

KEVIN HARRIS: Let's wrap it up with a couple of questions from Facebook. This says,

Dr. Craig, My 10-year-old son asked if he should pray that his favorite sports team win or just pray that they would be safe from injury. I'm not sure I have a good answer. Let me know how you think I should teach him in this. Thanks, Dan.

DR. CRAIG: Every sports fan has faced this problem. It is so tempting to pray for your favorite team that they would win, and I think you just have to tell your son, Dan, that this is not appropriate because there will be Christians on the other team – the competing team – who are also wanting to pray that they would win. And God can't answer everybody's prayer. So somebody is apt to be disappointed. It's far more important, I think, to God that we have the character and conduct that reflects Christ rather than whether we win or lose. So I would even encourage you not to have him pray that they would be safe from injury. I think that God can use injuries in people's lives in profound ways. So it's better to pray for them that their character would exemplify the person of Christ so that they are not, for example, raging in anger or swearing at the referee or members of the other team, that they display the kind of character that Christ would have them to display. The kind of character that a man like Harrison Butker displays, for example (the kicker for the Chiefs). So I would discourage his praying that his favorite sports team would win.

KEVIN HARRIS: By the way, I never pray that my favorite team will win. I just pray that the other team would lose. [laughter]

DR. CRAIG: Imprecatory prayers against the other team! [laughter]

KEVIN HARRIS: Final question,

Dear Dr. Craig, My aunt is severely depressed but refuses to take any medication for it. She was taught that we are to depend solely on God and perhaps accept suffering as his will for our lives and therefore not to use any artificial means to circumvent that. I've tried to tell her that God has allowed us to develop medicine and procedures as part of his grace. After all, she wouldn't undergo surgery without anesthesia. Any suggestions on helping her through this? Thank you, Carson.

DR. CRAIG: If you could try to show from Scripture that God uses means that would probably be the most convincing to her. So I think, for example, of Paul's advice to Timothy where he says “Take a little wine for your frequent ailments.” Timothy was apparently prone to illness or he was sickly, and so what Paul says is a little wine is going to help you to deal with this. That would be a specific example of not simply gritting your teeth and enduring suffering but of using some sort of means. And, as you say, modern medicine is simply an enormous extrapolation of that simple first century advice. It's very similar to the way God has given us experts in other areas. If you have a leak in your house or a short in the electrical system, you don't pray that God would miraculously fix it. God has given us plumbers and electricians to deal with these problems. In exactly the same way, he's given us doctors to help us deal with the infirmities and the illnesses in our bodies. So help her to see that if she avails herself of help in these other areas, there's no objection to availing herself of the help of modern medicine.^[1]