Questions on the Kalam, Molinism, and Personal Questions

KEVIN HARRIS: An avalanche of questions, Bill! We want to put you on the hot seat and get you to answer some of these questions that we’ve gotten. Always check the Question of the Week segment on ReasonableFaith.org because your question may be addressed there, or some form of it. So be sure to check. Here are some questions that we’ve received.

Dear Dr. Craig, In the book How To Prove There Is A God, Dr. Mortimer Adler makes an interesting comment that relates to the second premise of the Kalam cosmological argument. He says, “If you choose that the world began, you already assumed the existence of God. That begs the question. You would be assuming that God exists.” Page 11 of his book. If one assumes the temporality of the universe as the second premise of the Kalam cosmological argument does, is one committed to begging the question or circular reasoning? Dave in the United States.

DR. CRAIG: Well, no Dave, I don't think so at all. There's nothing about the premise that “the universe began to exist” that presupposes the existence of God. On the contrary, it, I think, implies the existence of God when conjoined with the first premise that “whatever begins to exist has a cause.” But there are many people who believe that the universe began to exist who do not believe in God. I think they're mistaken, but it shows, I think, that the statement that the universe began to exist is itself religiously neutral and therefore non-question begging.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question:

Dear Dr. Craig, One Calvinist-deterministic argument against Molinism is that counterfactuals are contingent upon God's creation. Thus, God's omniscience (which relies upon counterfactuals) is contingent on his creation. Therefore, a divine attribute part of God's nature is contingent on his creation. Therefore, we should reject counterfactuals and thus Molinism. Is there a response to this? Wilson from the United States

DR. CRAIG: Wilson, I'm afraid that this objection is just one more example of a misunderstanding of Molinism. According to Molinism, counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (that is to say, statements like “If I were rich, I would buy a Mercedes”) are contingent. They are not true in every possible world. But they're not contingent upon God's creation. Quite the reverse. It is on the basis of these counterfactuals that God decrees which world to create. There's an indefinite range of worlds that are feasible to God given the contingent counterfactuals of creaturely freedom that are true. Maybe one way to visualize this is to realize that the actualization of the physical world parallels the three moments of God's knowledge. The first moment is God's natural knowledge, and at that moment all of the broadly logically necessary states of affairs of the world are actual. In the second moment is the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom – his middle knowledge – and at that moment all of the counterfactual states of affairs are actual. And then comes the divine decree in which God then chooses one of the multitude of feasible worlds available to him. Then is the third moment – the free knowledge – which is God's knowledge of the actual world and now all of the actual world is fully realized. God's middle knowledge is prior to his free knowledge and the full actualization of the world.

KEVIN HARRIS: We have three or four personal questions here that readers/listeners have sent in.

Dr. Craig, can you give us an update on your projected philosophical systematic theology? When can we expect it to be released, and what all will be included in volume one? From Taylor.

DR. CRAIG: Thank you, Taylor, for your interest. I am working currently on the doctrine of creation. And that has taken me into a discussion of creatio ex nihilo as well as conservation of the world in being. Now I'm doing an excursus on the origin of life and the evolution of biological complexity, trying to have a theological perspective on those two scientific disciplines. I do not yet have a publisher for this projected work, and so I have no idea of when it will be released. I hope that I don't have to write the whole thing before getting a contract on it, but we'll have to see. What's included in volume one, in answer to your question, will be prolegomena (or introduction to the subject) – what is systematic philosophical theology. Then there is a chapter on Scripture in which I defend the inspiration and authority of Scripture for doing Christian theology. Then there's a chapter on faith where I ask what faith is (whether it implies belief) and also on what rational justification there is for having faith. That would be included in volume 1. In volume 2, I deal with the doctrine of God, and that would include the attributes of God such as omniscience, simplicity, necessity, omnipotence, holiness, and so forth. Then an excursus on natural theology which covers the six basic arguments for the existence of God that I've worked on over my lifetime. Then finally closes out with a section on the Trinity – why we believe that God is a Trinity and a defense of that doctrine. That would be the contents of the first two volumes that have been already completed.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question,

Dear Dr. Craig, Are you not doing speaking engagements anymore? If so, this is very sad for me as I only got to see you speak in person once or twice. In any case, you have been one of the biggest intellectual influences on my life even though I haven't always agreed with all your views and conclusions. Thank you and God bless you, Dr. William Lane Craig. Anthony in the United States

DR. CRAIG: Thank you, Anthony, for those kind remarks. I am continuing to speak but simply not as frequently. I spoke in December at a tour of Ivy League universities, and I just got back from Houston where I participated in a philosophical conference, also an apologetics conference in a church, and then taught for a week at Houston Christian University. The next engagement on my calendar is a wonderful opportunity at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories where I have the opportunity to speak to the scientists and staff of this top-tier research institution on the existence of God. So I am continuing to travel and speak but at a much reduced rate because of the need of devoting the lion's share of my time to writing this systematic philosophical theology.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question:

Dear Dr. Craig, You are very instrumental in my life with regards to my faith. I cannot describe your impact on my life and forming coherent and a reasonable Christian worldview. I really admire how you got your doctorate degrees in philosophy and theology in leading universities. My question is: Are you planning to take another doctorate degree? What could be the area that you would study if that is the case? Romel in the Philippines

K How about it, Bill? Another doctorate?

DR. CRAIG: No, Romel. I am not, although at one time in my life I did toy with the idea of doing a third degree in astrophysics. That would be the field that I would pick if I were to do it. I am absolutely fascinated by astrophysics, and I find it to be one that is so closely integrated with theology and particularly the doctrine of creation.

KEVIN HARRIS: One of us needs to get a degree in sociology, Bill. We get so many questions and so many articles in the podcast dealing with social issues. This next question,

Dr. Craig, I'm a pastor of a church which is in need of establishing its statement of faith. While researching various faith statements, I came across the posted theological commitments of Reasonable Faith and found them precise and Christo-centric. It seems to me that they neither say too much so as to needlessly estrange, nor do they say too little so as to be overly vague. My guess is that you, Dr. Craig, wrote these commitments yourself. Is this correct? From which particular historic Christian creeds or documents was the wording of these commitments drawn? Would you have any reservations about a church using these same commitments in its own statement of faith?

Let's stop right there. There's about four questions.

DR. CRAIG: OK. That question comes from Darren in Canada. I want to say to Pastor Darren that these statements were not written by me. I no longer remember where we got them. I remember reading these faith commitments and thinking to myself this would be perfect for Reasonable Faith because it is an expression of what C.S. Lewis called “mere Christianity” – those essential Christian truths that we all want to affirm but without getting into too fine distinctions of Christian doctrine that might alienate people belonging to different denominations or confessions. I want to say if you would like to use these statements of faith in your church, feel free to do so. They are not copyrighted by us.

KEVIN HARRIS: Let me just finish out his question. He said,

From the bottom of my heart, Dr. Craig, thank you for your ministry and your ongoing example. Some years ago your published doctoral thesis, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus [I got that right there!] was, I believe, the greatest factor in preserving me as a Christ-follower in the midst of a critically oriented curriculum in my secular divinity degree. That book, along with your other work, has been a source of such joy and confidence to me as a Christian, father, and minister of Christ's Gospel. Looking forward to your systematic philosophical theology.

Again, thank you. Darren.

DR. CRAIG: Oh, that is so wonderful to hear. It just is so heartwarming especially for a book that is one of the least known of the things that I’ve published. I published this with Edwin Mellen Press in Canada. It was so extraordinarily expensive that no one except perhaps for a few university libraries bought it, and so it's little read even though it is my most important work on the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. What I do want to say is that I have now obtained permission from Edwin Mellen Press to have the book republished with Wipf and Stock in the United States which specializes in doing reprint editions of books at an affordable price. So I am thrilled to say that the book Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus will be available within this next year in an affordable edition from Wipf and Stock.

KEVIN HARRIS: Great. Next question,

Dear Dr. Craig, I have a question regarding human nature and evil. Are humans inherently evil, or do we just have evil tendencies? Is committing sin an evil act or is it just breaking God's law? The reason I ask is that my son said that all humans are evil. I don't necessarily disagree with him, but I don't see anywhere that it states that all humans are evil in the Bible. Ryan

DR. CRAIG: We as human beings are not inherently evil. Otherwise Adam and Eve would have been evil prior to the Fall. And since Jesus was a human being, that would imply that Jesus was evil. Fallen human beings have sinned. That's true. So Paul will say all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And so all of us are infected with evil in virtue of our sin and so find ourselves condemned before a just and holy God. But that doesn't mean that human beings are inherently evil. That would be incorrect.

KEVIN HARRIS: This question from Milan,

Dear Dr. Craig, Are we devising new arguments for God in developing existing ones? Or is apologetics pretty much a completed field?

DR. CRAIG: Oh, apologetics is certainly not a completed field. There are new arguments being developed all the time as well as advancing the traditional ones. Alvin Plantinga gave a lecture a few years ago that was so remarkable. It was called Two Dozen (or so) Arguments for God's Existence. That lecture laid out a number of new arguments for the existence of God that were extremely creative. Finally this lecture was published by Oxford University Press, edited by Jerry Walls and Trent Dougherty, and is available now with Plantinga’s original lecture, and then essays by philosophers on all of the two dozen arguments that Plantinga proposed assessing their worth and cogency as arguments for God. I'm one of the persons who was invited to participate in the book, updating and defending the Kalam cosmological argument.

KEVIN HARRIS: This next question is kind of long. If we need to take a pause in the middle of it, we'll do so.

Dear Dr. Craig, Thank you for your excellent scholarship. As a student I was inspired by your example, and as a New Testament professor I draw on your work routinely in my classes. In chapter 7 of your book on the historical Adam you conclude that Paul's argument in Romans 5 asserts the existence of historical Adam. You write, “an action that is wholly internal to a fiction cannot have effects outside the fiction.” But while I agree that Adam cannot be a purely fictional character (like Gandalf) why can't Adam be a representative figure (like Uncle Sam)? Gandalf's action can't affect people in the real world because Gandalf is pure fiction. Uncle Sam's actions on the other hand do affect us because Uncle Sam, though not a historical person, represents a historical group (the US government). This is why we say things like Uncle Sam took my money. So just as the serpent represents Satan in Romans 16, why couldn't Adam represent an early community of humans that fell into sin? This is what C. S. Lewis seems to suggest in chapter 5 of The Problem of Pain. In short, I understand why Romans 5 commits us to a historical Fall, but I don't understand why it commits us to a historical Adam. In Romans 5, Paul has no problem collapsing the original couple into one figure to facilitate the comparison with Jesus. Paul, of course, knows that Eve was actually the first to transgress. So if the figure of Adam in Romans 5 can stand for two historical people, why can't he stand for an entire group? Of course, I don't doubt that Paul himself assumed the existence of a historical Adam, I just don't see how Paul's argument asserts the existence of a historical Adam. Thank you for your time. Murray.

You got that, Bill?

DR. CRAIG: Yes. I think so. I'm just not persuaded that the persons of Adam and Eve either in Genesis 1-3 or in Paul's writings are merely archetypal or representative figures rather than real people who can serve a representative function. I mean, it certainly is true that Adam does sort of represent every man before God, but that doesn't necessitate that he's not a historical person. I think that he's presented as a historical person in Genesis 1-3, who's included in the genealogies linked to the descendants of Abraham, and then I think that in the New Testament Paul clearly describes Adam as the first man. He says “the first man Adam” became a living being. In Luke's narrative of Paul's speech in Athens, Paul says, “from one he made every nation of men to inhabit the whole earth.” Here in Romans 5 he's talking about Adam and his sin. I don't think he's talking about a corporate pair of Adam and Eve. He just leaves Eve out of the equation and focuses on Adam. So while I think we can regard Adam as being a representative figure of all persons before God, that isn't incompatible with his historicity as an individual person. I think it's just virtually indisputable that he is presented as an individual human being in Genesis as well as in Paul's writings.

KEVIN HARRIS: This question says,

Hello, Dr. Craig. I had a question based off an objection posed by an atheist friend of mine regarding the fine-tuning of the universe argument for God. The second premise of the argument rules out chance because the chances are far too small to be reasonably faced. He then objects: how do we know the existence of God is any more probable than these constants lining up the way they do by mere chance? It seems like we can't assign a numerical probability to God's existence like we do with the constants. So on what standard can I say that the existence of God is more plausible than the fine-tuned constants lining up by mere chance? Samuel.

DR. CRAIG: Samuel, I think that you've misunderstood the argument. The argument isn't comparing the probability of God's existence to the probability of the constants and quantities falling into the life-permitting range by chance. Rather, what it compares is the probability of fine-tuning on naturalism compared to the probability of fine-tuning on God. The probability of the fine-tuning on naturalism is infinitesimal because there just isn't any reason that these constants and quantities would assume the values they do. But the probability of the fine-tuning given God is not astronomically low because God is an intelligent agent who could choose to create a fine-tuned universe. Now, he wouldn't have to so we might say the probability is not high that the universe would be fine-tuned given God's existence, but I think we'd say it's certainly not low. So the question is: What is the probability of fine-tuning on naturalism? And what is the probability of fine-tuning on God's existence? I think it's clearly much, much higher on God's existence. Now, if you do want to talk about the probability of God's existence versus the probability of naturalism then that's a different conversation. I want to talk about that, too, and then you would use all of the other evidence like the argument from contingency, the argument from the beginning of the universe, the moral argument, the argument from the applicability of mathematics to show that the probability of God is much higher than the probability of naturalism.

KEVIN HARRIS: Got a question from Brazil.

Dr. Craig, Greetings. As an apologist, I would like to know why a more energetic and forceful form of apologetics is not used in debates and interactions with enemies of Christianity. Jesus called opponents “sons of the devil,” “serpents,” “brood of vipers,” “whitewashed tombs,” as well as Peter told Simon the Magician that his money should go with him to hell, and Paul defined bar Jesus as “the son of the devil full of deceit and all malice and enemy of all righteousness” as well as “disturber of the right ways of the Lord.” In addition to the 2 Peter and the letter of Jude and various other passages that refer to heretics and opponents of the absolute truth written that reveals the absolute truth incarnate with the worst adjectives in order to reveal who they really are. So why don't we use this more forceful and offensive way with enemies of the cross such as atheists and adherents of other religions who mock and denigrate biblical Christianity which is the only true religion.

Interesting question. That's from Eduardo in Brazil.

DR. CRAIG: The answer, Eduardo, is because we are trying to win people to the Gospel. If you take the strategy that you've described, you will alienate virtually everyone from coming to Christ. You will be so repulsive, so hateful in your speech and rhetoric that people won't even listen to the message that you want to convey. Keep in mind, in these debates the target of these debates is not the opponent. It's not to correct him or even to persuade him. The target is the audience. It is all of those university students who are seeking and have come to this event looking for truth and asking if God exists or has revealed himself in Christ. In these kind of forums, we want to present the loving character of Christ to them and leave the sarcasm and the denigration and the insults to the secular opponent of Christianity. I know from vast experience that if you will do that, if you turn the other cheek, that it will be the secular opponent who will alienate the audience and who will be unappealing and unattractive. It will be the Christian side of the argument that people will be inclined to listen to. It's really important in doing evangelism and persuasion that we represent the love and the character of Christ to those that we're trying to win.

KEVIN HARRIS: Yeah. Absolutely. I've been thinking about this question because I find it interesting. For one thing, Jesus was in a position to call judgment; we're not. I mean, he could make that call and he could make that judgment. As far as Paul, 2 Peter, and Jude, there is an imprecatory literary genre in Hebrew writings that they could be kind of reflecting there – just being imprecatory. But I agree with you. Why go and blast and be deliberately offensive because you think there's a model of that in the New Testament?

DR. CRAIG: I know so many cases where Christian apologists have adopted this kind of denunciatory and insulting and sarcastic rhetoric, and the terrible effects that it has. What does 1 Peter 3:15 tell us? It says always be ready to give a defense to those who ask you a reason for the hope that is in you, “but do it with gentleness and reverence.”

KEVIN HARRIS: We have two more questions.

Dear Dr. Craig, Did Jesus go through the horrible and humiliating experience of the crucifixion out of love for mankind, or to do the will of God? When Jesus prayed for God to let this cup pass from him, from your opinion and perspective would Jesus have chosen to escape this horrible experience if God had said, “It's your choice, my Son.” Joanna

DR. CRAIG: No, Joanna. I think Jesus would have gone to the cross. In John 15:13ff Jesus says, “Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. . . . No longer do I call you servants, . . . but I have called you friends.” So Jesus voluntarily laid down his life for us, his friends, and no greater love can someone have than to sacrifice his own life for another person. This was not done simply out of a sense of obligation or duty. This was done voluntarily from love.

KEVIN HARRIS: One more question today. It says,

Dear Dr. Craig, I recently came across your website and your writings so it seems I'm late to the party. From a busy academic your willingness to accept weekly questions is remarkable. Thank you for considering the following requests for your thoughts. My Reformed Presbyterian parents raised me with a clear sense that I should assume responsibility for my own actions, clean up my own messes, take my licks when they're deserved. I have tried to live my life that way. How do I reconcile this with Christ's gift – his assumption of the suffering or punishment I should bear for my own misconduct? Shouldn't I be the one to pay the price for my own sin? Is it even moral for me to accept such a sublime gift? Carl.

DR. CRAIG: I appreciate Carl's understanding of what an enormous gift redemption and forgiveness is. It is undeserved. He's absolutely correct about that. But if God left it up to us to pay the penalty for our own sin then all of us would go to hell, and that would contravene God's love. God is not simply a God of justice; he's also a God of love. While his justice demands punishment for sin rightly deserved, his love demands pardon and forgiveness. How does he reconcile these two essential aspects of his moral character? Well, I think they meet at the cross. At the cross we see God's justice as his just judgment is poured out upon sin. Substitutionally Christ takes it for us. But we also see the love of God in that Christ voluntarily does this on our behalf so that we can be forgiven and reconciled to God. So I think that the reconciliation of God’s love and justice comes at the cross, and our proper response is to gratefully receive his grace and forgiveness.^[1]