Summary
Chet from the U.S. raises a question about the implications of Christ's sacrifice for nonbelievers, suggesting that the infinite value of Jesus' payment for sins seems like a gift left unclaimed by those who do not believe. Dr. Craig responds by affirming that while the potential for benefit exists, it is not realized until individuals accept it. He emphasizes that Christ's death has the potential to absolve sins for all, but this potential is actualized over time as people come to faith.
Another question from Chris in the UK challenges the Kalam cosmological argument, suggesting that God could have created the universe and then ceased to exist. Dr. Craig counters this by explaining that many arguments for God's existence imply that God is a necessary being who cannot cease to exist. He also addresses the concern about God being distant, asserting that the resurrection of Jesus serves as evidence of God's ongoing involvement in the world.
In response to a question about the nature of Jesus as the Logos, Dr. Craig clarifies that Jesus is the Logos itself, rather than merely the spirit of the Logos. He explains that the distinction is important to avoid confusion regarding the Trinity. Additionally, he discusses the historical consensus that the disciples experienced post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, which is crucial for understanding the origins of the Christian faith.
Finally, Dr. Craig addresses a question about the presence of disputed passages in the Bible, such as the longer ending of Mark. He suggests that these discrepancies are part of the broader problem of evil, where human freedom allows for errors in manuscript copying. He argues that God permits such imperfections to maintain human freedom and ultimately achieve a balance between those who accept and reject Him.
Show Notes
Dr. Craig answers listener questions from around the world. If Christ paid for every sin, why would anyone still face judgment? Could God have made the universe and simply moved on? What should we make of a skeptical historian who says the disciples must have seen something? Plus: when science and Scripture seem to collide, which gives way? Why did God allow Mark’s snake-handling passage into our Bibles? And will the wicked exist forever?
More from Reasonable Faith Podcast
A listener asks Dr. Craig to imagine a possible world filled with free persons, love, moral agency, and a genuine relationship with God, but with none of the cancer, war, animal suffering, or death we see in our own. If a world like that is logically possible, what greater good could justify God choosing a world like ours instead? Dr. Craig takes up this possible-worlds objection and considers whether it really undercuts his view that God permits suffering for the sake of bringing people freely to know Him.
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.
Philosophical theologian Ryan Mullins argues that William Lane Craig’s version of Molinism is incoherent, and the charge comes down to one word: deliberation. If God already knows everything, can he really deliberate about which world to create? And if he can’t, is his choice truly free? Dr. Craig responds to Mullins’s critique, evaluates defenses offered by Tim Stratton and Reasonable Faith's own Tyson James, and explains why Mullins’s proposed fix would come at a steep theological price. Plus, a decades-old atheist argument from Dan Barker turns out to be the same puzzle in different clothes.
If nothing is impossible for God, how can some worlds be “infeasible” for Him? A listener named Howard presses Dr. Craig on a phrase that sounds like a limit on God’s power. Dr. Craig explains the Molinist idea behind it: true counterfactuals about how free creatures would choose narrow the range of worlds God can actually bring about. He then argues why this places no restriction on divine omnipotence.
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.