# William Lane Craig



## heartoflesh (Jul 13, 2005)

...was on the Bible Answerman broadcast last night, and will be tonight as well, I believe. He and Hank are discussing a book Craig coauthored with an Atheist regarding the existing of God. 

Craig made a comment during the broadcast that caught my attention. A caller asked why God hasn't given "special revelation" to everyone, so that everyone would have "a chance to be saved". Lane replied that God has given both natural revelation and special revelation as means of salvation. Needless to say I was flabbergasted! I always thought Lane was a conservative theologian, but I guess not. Hank apparently agreed with him, since he didn't mention anything.

What is evangelicalism coming to?????


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 13, 2005)

What answer were you looking for?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jul 13, 2005)

I think he may be bothered by the "special revelation" comment. By that I assume he may just mean the scriptures?


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jul 13, 2005)

Hank says that all men are provided with the light of general revelation. Those that respond to "the light they've been given" will therefore be given more light... I guess it naturally would lead a trail to the specific revelation of Jesus Christ as long as one responds properly along the way.

After listening to the BibleAnswerMan for years, unfortunately that came to be the answer that I'd give people when they asked the same question. Shame on me!

Perhaps WL Craig doesn't draw out that same natural conclusion; he's always seemed VERY sound to me.


----------



## heartoflesh (Jul 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> What answer were you looking for?



I always thought it was standard evangelical doctrine that special revelation, i.e., specific knowledge of the gospel of Christ, was necessary for salvation. I thought only liberals held the "salvation by natural revelation" view. If salvation is possible by natural revelation, wouldn't be more prudent *not* to evangelize, since we may be doing more harm than good if they reject the gospel?


----------



## JohnV (Jul 13, 2005)

The Bible is Special Revelation. And many people who aren't saved have one in their home. They have Special Revelation. But they don't have the Spirit to illumine their hearts. 

The Belgic Confession makes it clear that we have two revelations of God, namely the creation and the Word. And a lot of unbelievers have both. 

So I think there is likely a distinction here between Special Revelation as the Word, and Special Revelation as in having one's eyes opened to it. For some, their eyes have been opened to the Word by having the words of Scripture engrained in their minds first, but coming to grips with those words through occurrances in nature, such as Luther's thunderstorm. Is it that Hannegraff or Craig didn't distinquish between these?


----------



## New wine skin (Jul 13, 2005)

Isnt Craig an evidentialist? that may be the context of his stmt about "revelation".


----------



## heartoflesh (Jul 13, 2005)

No, it was regarding it is possible to be saved without specific knowledge of Christ.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 13, 2005)

We WCFers (ch. 1) could never agree w/ Dr. Craig. Natural Revelation is _insufficient_ to provide knowledge necessary for salvation. That is what makes Special Revelation, preaching, missionaries, the gospel so necessary. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God."


----------



## Robin (Jul 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> The Bible is Special Revelation. And many people who aren't saved have one in their home. They have Special Revelation. But they don't have the Spirit to illumine their hearts.



Careful, guys....let's tighten things up a bit....(John, I know what you're getting at...)

Special revelation (Berkof) is the Gospel. NOT the Word (which contains both Law and Gospel language in it.) Natural man has the Law written on the heart (eventhough he may deny it.) But the Gospel is outside of man's knowledge -- totally foreign. The Gospel needs to be taught to the natural man since he has absolutely no proclivity to know about it. 

General revelation (Berkof) of course is God's imprint/signiture in creation. It does not speak of redemption at all - only of God's existence, power, majesty Etc. General revelatioin is a public billboard for God...its presence is unavoidable.

Only Special revelation resides in the Scripture, in the Gospel language/passages....and on the lips of faithful proclaimers.

Berkof makes a sharp distinction between the two.



Robin

WL Craig has been veering off into the ditch for some time now. I've sat witness to him splendidly making the cosmological argument for an hour only to conclude by telling the athiest to "ask Jesus into your heart and make him your _personalordandsavior_." Poor Dr. Craig (a very nice guy) who is simply NOT helping the promotion of the Gospel.

[Edited on 7-14-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Robin (Jul 14, 2005)

....and as for Hank....THAT's another story!

See here:

http://www.waltermartin.com/cri.html

r.


----------



## heartoflesh (Jul 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> ....and as for Hank....THAT's another story!
> 
> See here:
> ...



I wonder if CRI's move to North Carolina has something to do with getting better mail service?

http://www.cultlink.com/news/CRIfraud.htm


[Edited on 7-14-2005 by Rick Larson]


----------



## john_Mark (Jul 14, 2005)

Craig is a Molinist and as I haven't heard the whole context of the Q&A I wonder if his Molinism had any part of the answer?


----------



## New wine skin (Jul 14, 2005)

Hank must have moved to get better mail service to sell more books! Anyone else notice how often Hank pitches product items?

Per Dr Craig and Molinism, I listened last night and he specifically stated he held to middle knowledge, but didn't go into detail, except to say that God knows all possible choices each man has so as to allow man freedom without contradicting the sovereign power of God. Ugggh Reminds me of listening to Chuck Smith with Calvary Chapel when I was a young babe in Christ.


----------



## heartoflesh (Jul 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by New wine skin_
> Hank must have moved to get better mail service to sell more books! Anyone else notice how often Hank pitches product items?



uuggg! Every other call he says "I wrote a book about this....."


----------



## Robin (Jul 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...



So far, a large group of former CRI employees are trying hold Hank legally accountable...due to many grevious and fraudulent acts; wrongful dismissals. Mrs. Walter Martin and the family are against his exploitations and are understandably horrified at what Hank has done to Walter's name and work.

Apparently, it has been discovered that Hank has behaved as a "con man" and definitely was NOT appointed as Walter's heir.

It's not surprising that Hank wants to be far from California....and near the "land of cheap apologetics-assistant labor" via Norman Geisler's school" ?????

Pray for the Martin family and especially that the deceit and wickedness connected with Christ's name via this so-called Christian ministry, be thwarted.



R.



[Edited on 7-14-2005 by Robin]


----------



## JohnV (Jul 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by New wine skin_
> Per Dr Craig and Molinism, I listened last night and he specifically stated he held to middle knowledge, but didn't go into detail, except to say that God knows all possible choices each man has so as to allow man freedom without contradicting the sovereign power of God. Ugggh Reminds me of listening to Chuck Smith with Calvary Chapel when I was a young babe in Christ.



These are also the types of things I watch for. There is a big difference between defending truth and defending your own extrapolations of known truths. An apologist has no business going out on his own; he's no longer an apologist, but a theorist. As I understand it, an apologist's aim is to defend the Christian faith; when he makes of it what he will, then he is no longer defending that faith, but only his own views.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by New wine skin_
> ...


----------



## Robin (Jul 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by New wine skin_
> ...



OK, I gotta say this, too...

It must be noted that "apologia" in the Scriptures/NT is about defending The Gospel, particularly. This means, the information about Christ (1 Cor. 15.) Biblical apologetics is not about defending the existence of God; the reliability of Scripture; establishing God's moral decrees; the age of the earth; creation, or the many other so-called Christian apologetics. It means the Gospel - which is a "summons" to receive God's provision and by which there is absolutely no hope for the unbeliever unless his ears hear it explained/proclaimed clearly.

While many have good intentions of defending the truth about God...I view the enterprise of dismantling unbelief in a different catagory: "pre-evangelism." It is certainly NOT apologetics as taught in Holy Scripture. (Btw, understanding this distinction (in my opinion) removes the so-called debate about presupp.)

Whew! See...you guys are getting me wound up again...

r.


----------



## Robin (Jul 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by New wine skin_
> ...



 John!

r.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 14, 2005)

When I get two 's in one day, then I want to hang something on the wall. :bigsmile:


----------



## New wine skin (Jul 15, 2005)

I will give you another ditto, great point. Call in shows like Bible Answer man tend to get off rabbit trails with people asking either the same ques over and over, which are as you said usually pre-gospel discussion. Seems that the rocket never gets off the ground... that is, the gospel never gets preached. My two cents if I were a radio producer would be that Hank should ask the questions that people should be asking, relating to Sin, Atonement, Lordship, Holiness of God, etc..


----------



## Robin (Jul 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by New wine skin_
> ...if I were a radio show producer... questions that people should be asking, relating to Sin, Atonement, Lordship, Holiness of God, etc..



Good luck in getting that aired! We had a show out here (Reformed) called "Sinners and Saints". That got cancelled the minute the guys dared to question the orthodoxy of the Purpose Driven stuff. They were really nice too. (The PD company owns the radio station.)




r.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 15, 2005)

Well, I think that that program is a prime example of things like that, someone getting overtaken by his own importance. I used to listen to the program when I could, when I used to work late into the nights.It was pretty good at first, because he could explain pretty well the doctrines of grace. But he veered off into things that first over explained, and then missed the mark, all the while he became more like an ordinary radio phone-in guys, arrogant to some of his callers, obviously having some set-up guys, phoney call-ins, to raise certain points he wanted to talk about. When it gets that air of phoneyness, I lose interest. ( But I can stand him more than I can stand Rush; I don't know how they let that kind of stuff one the airwaves. ) I would put him on the level of Dr. Whatshername, I think it was Laura, the phone-in advice-giver.

[Edited on 7-15-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 18, 2005)

From James White, www.aomin.org:


> John Calvin won an online survey about the greatest theologian ever. Online surveys are so meaningful, aren't they? But this one is in fact interesting, since they asked William Lane Craig about Calvin's win, and his response was quite consistent for the leading promoter of Molinism today:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jul 18, 2005)

Yikes! 

I withdraw my earlier comment about Craig! From now on, he will receive from me the dreaded....


Thanks for pointing this out, Bruce.


----------

