Show Notes
A listener who's been working through Dr. Craig's Systematic Philosophical Theology asks whether it's more accurate to say Jesus Christ is "the Spirit of the Logos" united to a human body, rather than "the soul of the Logos," pointing to passages describing God as spirit and drawing an analogy to how a human spirit unites to a body. Dr. Craig first corrects the premise: his actual view is that the Logos is the soul of Jesus, not that the Logos possesses a soul. He then explains why he avoids "spirit" language here, it risks blurring the incarnation with the Holy Spirit's indwelling or even demonic possession, when in fact the incarnation is a unique union unlike either.
More from Reasonable Faith Podcast
A listener writes that his faith is hanging in the balance. Wherever he looks, from natural theology to the resurrection, he thinks the scholarly consensus seems to be against Christianity, and online critics accuse Christian thinkers, Dr. Craig included, of intellectual dishonesty. Questions about James Tour and the origin of life have only deepened his doubts. Is Christianity a respected position in the academy? Would a naturalistic account of abiogenesis threaten the faith? And how can we tell legitimate theological development from ad hoc accommodation to science? Dr. Craig responds.
A viral clip from Fr. Mike Schmitz claims that Protestants who take Jesus’ words in John 6 seriously end up becoming Catholic. Dr. Craig explains why the bread of life discourse doesn’t require eating Christ’s literal flesh, and why that claim overlooks the many non-Catholic traditions that also affirm a real presence. He then weighs in on John Piper and Kevin DeYoung’s friendly exchange over baptizing infants, and asks whether baptism is really the new covenant’s counterpart to circumcision.
In this episode, Dr. William Lane Craig answers questions regarding the resurrection of Jesus. What do scholars say about the empty tomb? What does prominent scholarship on the resurrection tell us? Does the best New Testament research support the facts surrounding the resurrection of Jesus?
A YouTuber named Jay claims Frank Turek dodged a university student's question: if God is perfect, why didn't He create us perfect rather than flawed? Kevin plays the clips, and Dr. Craig explains why the question is built on confusion. Only God is a perfect being, and God cannot be created, so any created being is necessarily imperfect. Imperfect does not mean morally bad. Adam and Eve were sinless, but innocent rather than perfect. There is also no problem with a world where sin is possible, only with a world where it is actual. Dr. Craig applies Alvin Plantinga's idea of transworld depravity: there may be no feasible world in which free creatures always choose rightly. He also corrects the claim that God can alter the laws of logic, and explains why omnipotence does not mean doing the logically impossible.
A listener writes in with a philosophical challenge to the coherence of Christian doctrine: if God knowingly creates the exact conditions under which people will sin, how can he justly hold them responsible for sinning, and how can Christ's atonement make sense as a remedy for a failure that was effectively built into the system? Dr. Craig traces the problem to a hidden assumption in the question: theological necessitarianism, the idea that circumstances which make sin likely also make it inevitable. He argues that God's providence creates freedom-permitting circumstances, not deterministic ones, citing 1 Corinthians 10:13 on God's promise to supply a way of escape from every temptation. Craig also draws a key distinction between moral perfection, which he grants is impossible for finite creatures, and simply living without sin, using Adam and Eve's pre-fall innocence as an example of the latter without the former. He closes by addressing apostasy directly, denying that God ever places anyone in circumstances they are unable to handle.