The Doctrine of the Trinity (part 4)

January 21, 2008     Time: 00:49:40

We remember today the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade which legitimized abortion on demand in this country and has resulted since 1973 in the deaths of millions and millions of unborn children in this country. It is important, I think, always to keep this in mind and never let this issue die because by persistent keeping of this issue in mind and voting pro-life we are in a position now perhaps with Supreme Court appointments through George Bush to perhaps tip the court in a different direction. God willing that could happen in this administration.

American law on this issue is incredibly incoherent. It is amazingly self-contradictory. On the one hand you can have someone like Scott Petersen convicted of murder of his unborn son Connor and yet if Lacy Petersen had wanted to go into an abortion clinic and have an abortion then it wouldn’t have been murder – it wouldn’t have been homicide. The law is incredibly incoherent. On the one hand unborn children are treated legally as heirs to property, insurance, and so forth. They can be treated as victims of crime such as violence or child abuse, as victims of homicide as in the terrible case of Scott Petersen. Yet, on the other hand, when it comes to abortion on demand in this country a woman can walk into a clinic right up until through the ninth month of pregnancy – to the very date of delivery – and on demand have that child destroyed without any recourse in the law for its protection. It is amazingly incoherent.

I think as Christians we must never flag in our will and desire to see this terrible situation overturned and to have the right-to-life of these unborn children restored as it should be. All the state laws were overturned by a simple Supreme Court decision in 1973 without any vote or input from the people at all. We can only pray and continue to work for the reversal of this tragic decision which dehumanize all of these little persons.

[Discusses attendance in the class.]

We have been talking about the Trinity in our last three lessons. Before we go to the lesson let’s have a word of prayer to commit our time to the Lord.

[Opens the lesson with prayer, and responds to someone off-mic.][1]

START DISCUSSION

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig:You are asking about the deity of the Holy Spirit and his role in the Godhead. My discussion on the point that there are three distinct persons in the Godhead was not meant to unfold the full ministry and role of the Holy Spirit but just to demonstrate two basic things about him. First, he is a distinct person from the Father and the Son. That is very clear, I think, from the verses that we read where Jesus said, “I will pray to the Father and he will send you another Comforter” who is the Holy Spirit. He is a personal being. He is not an “it” nor a “force.” In fact, it is interesting in the Gospel of John, in these passages, the word in the Greek for Spirit is actually neuter. As in German, there are three genders in Greek: masculine, feminine, and neuter. To say that something is neuter doesn’t mean that it is not personal. For example, in German the word for a girl is neuter – das Mädchen. Das Mädchen is a girl but it is a neuter noun. Similarly, in Greek there is masculine, feminine, and neuter. The word for “spirit” is neuter – to pneuma. We get our word “pneumatic” from this, like pneumatic tires would be tires filled with air. But in John’s Gospel, when he speaks of the Spirit he actually violates Greek grammar by using the masculine pronoun – ho – with the Spirit to emphasize the personality of the Holy Spirit, which is very interesting. He actually violates Greek grammar; rather than call the Holy Spirit “it” he refers to the Holy Spirit as “he” even though “spirit” is neuter. So the Holy Spirit is a distinct person. But, as well, it is obvious that the Holy Spirit is God. Over and over again the Spirit is called the Spirit of God or he is called The Holy Spirit. He carries out the works and has the attributes of God.

Having said that, I think that what you are underlining for us is that the Holy Spirit is a sort of forgotten person of the Trinity. When you read the early Christian creeds (like the Nicene Creed) – “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible” and then “and in one Lord Jesus Christ” and this long paragraph. Then kind of thrown in at the end as an afterthought is “And in the Holy Spirit.” As if it is not all that big a deal. In fact, the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity, and he is an enormously important person.[2] Indeed, I would dare to say that in terms of living the Christian life – in terms of the functional importance – the Holy Spirit to us is really the most important person of the Trinity.

After we finish this section on the Trinity, we are going to launch into a special section on the person and role of the Holy Spirit where we will unfold in much greater depth his role in the Old Testament, his role in the New Testament church, his role in the life of a believer, and the importance of this, as I call him, forgotten member of the Trinity. We will go into that in much greater depth. But at least for now I think it is clear that he is God and yet he is a distinct person from the Father and the Son, and that is all we need to know for purposes of the Trinity.

Student: Where is the Holy Spirit first mentioned in the Bible?

Dr. Craig: I suppose it would be in the book of Genesis chapter 1 where it says,

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: This is a good point. You are saying, “But does this really refer to the third person of the Trinity, or is it referring to just God himself?” When you are talking about the Old Testament, that is not clear because the Old Testament doesn’t differentiate in a clear way the three persons of the Trinity. But the Old Testament has a great deal to say about the Spirit of God. Insofar as we do take this to be a reference to the Holy Spirit, this would be the first reference to the Holy Spirit. The role that the Holy Spirit plays in the Old Testament – of filling people like the judges like Samson and Gideon and these others for these great tasks – is very much like the role of the Holy Spirit in filling the believing for victorious Christian living today. Jesus lived in dependence upon the Holy Spirit for his ministry. He was filled with the Holy Spirit at his baptism. This is the same Holy Spirit that he recognized that you read about in the Hebrew Scriptures. So I think we can take it that when the Old Testament refers to the Spirit of God that this is something that would be pertinent to the Holy Spirit. Though you are quite right in saying the Old Testament doesn’t differentiate clearly among the persons.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: We talked about that a few weeks ago, actually. What I suggested there is that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit means to irrevocably reject the work of the Holy Spirit in your heart toward salvation. So that the unbeliever who refuses the witness of the Holy Spirit to the person of Christ and rejects Christ is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. That is an unforgivable sin because it irrevocably separates you from Christ, from salvation. By the same token, I think apostasy would also be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The author of the book of Hebrews warns in chapter 6 and 10 not to trample underfoot again the blood of Christ by outraging the Spirit of grace by which you were sanctified and reverting back to non-Christian status. The Hebrews were Hebrew Christians – Jewish Christians – who, under the threat of persecution, were tempted to go back to Judaism. The author is warning them that if they do that they forfeit salvation and there will be no more sacrifice for sin. So if you think apostasy is a real possibility for a believer – and there is a difference of opinion about that obviously, but if you did – that would also count, I think, as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: They were attributing Christ’s work to Satan. But I take it that in a broader context this would be to refuse to believe in Christ – whatever you attribute it to. It is refusing to recognize the authenticity of the Holy Spirit’s testimony to the work of Christ, to his deity, and his person, and choosing to disbelieve instead. That was the effect to what the Pharisees were doing in saying he does these things by Beelzebub.[3]

END DISCUSSION

Now let me ask you a question. I want to be sure you understand some of these historical developments of the doctrine of the Trinity. Who can explain to us what Logos Christology is? What was Logos Christology? What did the people who held to Logos Christology think about the Word?

Student: [inaudible]

That is true. Though there is more to it than that. How did they apply this to understand the multiplicity of persons in the Godhead?

Student: [inaudible]

Very good. These folks conceived of God existing prior to creation as the Father. So kind of like a single person – the Father – but within the Father is his reason, his rational faculty, and there is his wisdom. They believed that somehow the reason proceeded out from God as like a spoken word which proceeds out of my mouth as a speaker and became a different person – the second person of the Trinity. The wisdom similarly somehow proceeded out of God and became the Holy Spirit. So the Holy Spirit and Christ are sort of immanent (interior to, inward, inside) the Father’s mind and then proceed out into separate persons. This could either be an event that happened at the creation or it could be something that was conceived to have occurred from eternity past – that the Son has always proceeded from the Father like the sunbeam proceeds from the sun. Just as long as the sun ever existed – if from eternity the sun has existed – there would be the sunbeam proceeding out of it.

This Logos Christology was the first attempt to try to explain how there could be one God and yet be a plurality of persons in God.

START DISCUSSION

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: This is a very, very good question. What she is asking is: suppose there had never been a creation? Suppose God, as he is free to do, had decided instead I’m not going to create any universe. I am just going to exist by myself. Would there have been, in that case, a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit? There would have been three persons – that’s clear. There would have been these three persons that are God. There would have been the Godhead – the triad of persons. But would they have been a Father and a Son and a Holy Spirit if there had never been a plan of salvation for them to play out those roles?

Theologians differentiate between what is called the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity. The ontological Trinity – this comes from the Greek word ontos which means being or reality – is the Trinity as it really is in itself. The actual Trinity in itself is the ontological Trinity. The economic Trinity by contrast has to do with the roles that the persons play in the plan of salvation. So, for example, in the economic Trinity, it is the Father who is the creator who sends the Son. It is the Son who dies on the cross for the sins of mankind. The Father doesn’t die on the cross. In fact, there is a name for that heresy. It is called Patripassianism[4] – the view that the Father dies on the cross. That is a heresy. It is the Son that died on the cross. It is the Holy Spirit who came at Pentecost and brings the new birth and fills the church and enables Christians to live the victorious Christian life. So clearly the persons of the Trinity have different roles by which they differ in the economic Trinity. What you are asking is: are the roles that they play in economic Trinity also part of the ontological Trinity? Could, for example, a different person of the Trinity have decided to go to the cross and so that one would have been the Son? So the person we call the Father would have been the Son, and the person we call the Son would have played a different role and he would have been the Father. Do you understand the question? Are the roles they play in the economic Trinity the same as in the ontological Trinity. I’ll say something about that later on. But right now we at least understand the question. We will come back to that later.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: Do you mean on the Logos Christology, it sounds like there is a start? Yes, you are right, and this is not the doctrine that eventually became fully enshrined as the doctrine of the Trinity. Logos Christology was the first groping attempts to try to express this idea of a single God with a multiplicity of persons. For some of them they did think it had a start. They thought it started with the Father and then the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeded out of the mind of the Father. So they were fully divine. It is very important to see they weren’t creatures. They weren’t created. The Son was the mind of God himself – the Father’s Logos, the Word of the Father was the Son. It shows, I think, from the very beginning that these early Christian theologians understood the full deity of the Holy Spirit and Christ, but they were struggling to express it. As I say, others said there wasn’t a start to this. The Son and the Spirit have always proceeded from the Father. Remember my example of the sunbeam proceeding always from the sun – as long as the sun exists the sunbeam shines out of it. They would say similarly the sun has always proceeded from the Father.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: I don’t think you can have a sun with no sunbeam.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: You are saying you cannot have a sunbeam without a sun. But you said you can have a sun without a sunbeam. How could you have that?

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: Right. The Son is not the same as the Father. But you can’t have the sun without a sunbeam. What would a sun be that didn’t shine?

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: Right. It would be a moon, but even a moon would have a moonbeam! The sun is a luminous body, right? That means it has a radiance. You can’t have a sun without radiance – it wouldn’t be a sun.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: You say that the sun and the sunbeam have different properties so they are not essentially the same. Right. And that is why the point of the analogy was merely to illustrate the idea that proceeding out of something doesn’t have to have a beginning. But it is not meant to illustrate other points.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: You ask: how can you be one thing and yet be diverse or have multiplicity? We will talk some more about that in a second. I think the analogy is helpful, not as an analogy of the Trinity, but just an analogy of procession – of how the Son can proceed from the Father without there being a start, as you put it.[5] Understand that every analogy has a limited purpose. It is meant to illustrate one point. It is very easy to push an analogy beyond its bounds and show disanalogies with it. That is just pushing the analogy too far.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: I will same some more by way of trying to clear it up in a minute.

END DISCUSSION

Let me ask if someone can explain to us what modalism is?

Student: [inaudible]

That is right. It would be that God is one person but he has three different roles that he plays called Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is a form of unitarianism. Unitarianism is a denial of the Trinity. It is to say there is only one person who is God, and this one person plays different roles. Like I am one person, but I am a husband, a father, and a son. That is modalism. That was condemned by the church as heretical because it denies that there are three distinct persons.

START DISCUSSION

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: I am not going to comment upon Hindu theology because I don’t know it well enough to be able to comment. But insofar as these personages are meant to be simply masks of the one, undivided, indivisible Absolute, it is like that, yes. I guess that is what these pantheistic, monistic religions like Hinduism believe – that ultimately all is one and so these diverse personages like Shiva and Visnu are just appearances of this one indivisible entity. So that would be like modalism, right.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: I don’t think that modalism was ever dominant, but it was during the third century after Christ – AD 200s. Then it was condemned prior to the Council of Nicaea. The only date I have in my notes was Sebelius, who was a modalist, flourished around AD 215. But I don’t have the dates of his condemnation. We are talking of basically about AD 200 up to AD 300 – in that third century after Christ.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: Right. 325 was when Nicaea was held. But I think modalism was already condemned before that because it was really Arianism that was facing the Council of Nicaea.

END DISCUSSION

What is interesting about modalism that, again, is useful to keep in mind – did modalism deny the deity of Christ? No! On the contrary, it affirmed that Christ was God. So, again, you see that right from the beginning, whether you have the Logos Christologians or the modalists, they all agreed on the deity of Christ. That is why it is so misleading when Jehovah’s Witnesses or others say that it wasn’t until AD 325 that the church voted that Jesus Christ was God. That was common in the early centuries. The difficulty was how do you say he is God without saying he is the Father? Because they didn’t want to say that Christ was the Father. But they did want to say he is God. Modalism was one attempt to try to do that. It is helpful in a sense to understand that modalists actually affirmed the deity of Christ.

The next one, however, denied Christ’s deity. That was Arianism. What did Arianism hold to?

Student: [inaudible]

What do you mean by an offspring?

Student: [inaudible]

No. That wouldn’t be correct because – that is why I pressed you on offspring. An offspring of something has the same nature as the parent.[6] Dogs give birth to dogs. Cats give birth to cats. So if the Son is truly a son, he would have the same nature as the Father, right? He would be divine. So Arianism doesn’t want to say that Christ is the offspring of the Father. What does it want to say?

Student: [inaudible]

He is separate and distinct – yeah, but we all agree with that (that he is a separate and distinct person).

Student: [inaudible]

Yeah! He is a creature. He is the first creation by God. An artist or a manufacturer creates or makes something that is not of his own nature. He makes a chair. He makes a statue. He makes a painting. It is not the same nature as the manufacturer or the artist. So if the Son is not begotten from the Father as a son sharing his same nature, the Son is a creature. He is a creation. Therefore, to worship him would be blasphemous, right? Because that would be idolatry. He is not God. He doesn’t have the nature of God, of the Father.

So Arianism sees Christ as the supreme creature that God has created – the first creation that God made. But he is not God himself. I think I used the key words here that were in dispute at the Council – is the Son homoousias with the Father? Homo here is the Greek prefix meaning “same” (not Latin, meaning man). It means “same” like in homogenized where milk is homogenized, it is the same. Or homosexual – same sex. Homoousias – is the Son the same substance or essence as the Father? Or, as the Arians claimed, is he merely similar – homoiousias – with the Father? As I said, everything hung upon that single Greek iota. The whole theology hung upon that iota. So the idea that it is just an iota is not trivial. In this case it is absolutely critical.

That is the difference between Arianism and orthodoxy.

START DISCUSSION

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: The difficulty is that Mormonism doesn’t have any God to be similar to. In a sense, Mormonism is a form of polytheism. It says that God the Father is simply the God of this universe. He was once a human being who, through following right doctrine, was exalted to divinity and placed over this universe. And if you are a good faithful Mormon and do the teachings of the church, you too will be exalted to divinity and you will become the god over a universe of your own. Similarly with all the rest of us. In that sense, yeah, Christ was homoiousias with the Father, namely, they were all similar little deities but they don’t really have a God concept in the idea of Christian or Judaic orthodoxy. It is really a very crass form of polytheism. In that sense, I have to say yeah they do believe in homoiousias, but they don’t have any divine ousia (divine substance) to be equal to.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: Only in the sense that Yahweh is the God over this universe. He, according to Mormon theology, lives on a planet out in outer space near the star Kolob, and he governs this universe. But he has a human body like we do. He is a physical being. We will eventually have a universe of our own if we follow good Mormon teaching and get married in the temple and all the rest.

Student: [inaudible – asks about Colossians 1:15]

Dr. Craig: What does he [Paul] mean when he says he is the first-born of creation?[7] The “of” here – that is the genitive case. The genitive could be used to suggest lots of different relationships. Like we can say “it is made of silver” or “this is the car of Clinton” (meaning it is Clinton’s car). There are different ways this case can be used. When he says he is the first-born of all creation, I think what he is saying is he is the heir of all creation, because that is what the first-born is. The first-born is the heir of the father’s goods. In saying Christ is the first-born of all creation, I think he is saying he is the heir over all creation. If you look at Hebrews 1, that is exactly what it says there: “. . . in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, and John 1 are all strikingly similar in attributing to Christ full deity as the visible manifestation of God himself, as the heir to creation, and as the cosmic creator of the universe. I think that is what is going on in Colossians. Notice he goes on to say he is the creator of all things in heaven and on Earth which shows he is distinct from creation.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: Romans 8:29 is the question. I take it that that is referring to the incarnation. The first-born among many brethren. Think again of the book of Hebrews. He had to be made like his brethren in every respect, says the author of Hebrews, so that he might be the first-born of many children, of many heirs of God. So Christ, in virtue of the incarnation, shares our humanity and is the first-born among the brethren who are those who place their faith in him. I think there is remarkable consonance between what Romans says and what Hebrews says about Christ in that respect.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: The question is if God is forever why would there be an heir? Of course the heir here is himself forever in that the heir is the second person of the Trinity. So it is not as though he is giving over creation to anybody else. I am not sure what to say about that except that the New Testament is very clear that Christ is given lordship over the universe and that when Christ comes again all things will be put into subjection to him. He will be the Lord. That is why he is called the Lord – he will be the Lord over all things. This is simply the Father’s will, I suppose, to exalt Christ as perhaps the manifestation of his condescension in taking on human flesh and dying for our sins, that now he is made the heir of the universe and the Lord over all things.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: I think probably the rationale is that it is in virtue of his redemption of all creation, he becomes the Lord and heir of all creation, is what I suspect. I think that is probably right.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: It is a metaphor, but I do think that it expresses this idea of Christ’s lordship – that he will be Lord over all creation. It will all be subjected to him. That is what the metaphor cashes out as. Obviously, he is not an heir in the sense that the Father deceases and then he is his inheritor. That is not the idea. In that sense it is a metaphor.[8]

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: You make a good point in that Bible translators in foreign languages will often find themselves in cultures where you don’t have father-son relationships like they did in Hebrew culture and so they need to find what translators call a dynamic equivalent. This can be very controversial because it won’t be an exact word-for-word translation – a literal translation – which would be incomprehensible to the people, but they chose a dynamic equivalent to it. Then one wonders: but are they really getting then the real Word of God in what it should be? Maybe once you give them the dynamic equivalent you need to move to deeper understanding about Hebrew culture and so forth. But you raise a very good point in that these are expressions that are dependent upon language and upon culture. That is right. The very idea of God as a Father is obviously a metaphor that captures the parental authority of God and captures his love for us. But God isn’t male. He doesn’t have a gender. So it is clearly a metaphor. But it is an important metaphor expressing God’s love and authority over us just as a father has that kind of role in Jewish society.

END DISCUSSION

Let’s come to the Council of Nicaea now. I would like to just read again the creed because I think this captures what went on before and sums it up:

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made [that was the point we were talking about the difference between a creation and an offspring], of one substance with the Father [that’s homoousias – he has the same essence or nature as the Father], through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead.

And in the Holy Spirit.

But as for those who say, “There was when He was not,” and, “Before being born He was not,” and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or created, or is subject to alteration or change – these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.

START DISCUSSION

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: It is saying that there are three persons – the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit – and that the Son of God (Jesus) is not a creature. Rather, he is God. He is true God from true God. He has the same nature as the Father just as my son has the same nature as me – we are both human beings. So the Father and the Son have the same divine nature. So you cannot say that there was a time when he did not exist; you can’t say he was created out of nothing; you can’t say that he has a different essence than the Father. All of those are anathematized. You have three persons who are distinct persons but they are all divine – they are all God. That is what it is saying.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: Good question. Is this Logos Christology?[9] You see in the statement the vestige of Logos Christology; you see the long shadow cast by Logos Christology. Where do you see it in this statement?

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: Yeah, but not even so much as that as something else.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: Yeah, the idea of being begotten. The idea that the Son is begotten from the Father. “Light from light, true God from true God.” That is the vestige of Logos Christology – this idea that the Son is begotten. Notice this. Don’t miss this. The Son is begotten not in his human nature; it is in his divine nature that he is begotten. That is the vestige of Logos Christology.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: I said the vestige or the influence, the impact, of Logos Christology is seen in the fact that the Son is begotten, according to this statement, not so much in his humanity (his human nature) but he is begotten in his divine nature. He is begotten of the Father in his deity. That is the vestige of Logos Christology.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: No! See, that is exactly the point that I am making. The begetting here does not refer to the virginal conception by Mary.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: The begetting here doesn’t refer to the virginal conception or his birth as a human being. That is what makes this so radical. It is saying he is begotten in his divinity – his divine nature.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: It means to be an offspring of or to be a child of. To share the same nature. The child and the parent have the same nature.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: Exactly! Say it again.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: They are co-eternal. In fact, in some later versions of the creed, it will say “begotten of the Father before all worlds from eternity.” The point of begetting is sharing the same nature, not having a beginning point or a birth in time.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: Right! Of course, of course. I don’t mean to deny or to suggest they denied the incarnation.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. Craig: Yes. Jesus of Nazareth’s coming into being as a human person has to do with the virginal conception. The question that we as Christians today need to ask especially as Protestants. As Protestants we bring even creedal statements of the church before the bar of Scripture. These are not authoritative for us as Protestants. They are for Catholics. But as Protestants we bring even these before the bar of Scripture. Remember what Luther said in the film: Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by reason I will not and cannot recant. The question is: is this an element that we should affirm – this vestige of Logos Christology? This idea of the eternal begetting of the Son from the Father? That is an issue that we will have to take up next time because we are out of time.

END DISCUSSION

We did not, in fact, get to the lesson today but I think that this is a very useful dialogue because it is so important we understand this doctrine. We will go into this further next week in which I will try to address some of these questions that have been raised today.[10]



[1] 5:53

[2] 9:56

[3] 15:07

[4] 20:00

[5] 25:06

[6] 30:02

[7] 35:00

[8] 39:40

[9] 45:01

[10] Total Running Time: 49:40 (Copyright © 2008 William Lane Craig)