William Lane Craig On The Role Of Evidence In "Reasonable Faith."

[JAG ..]

As the title indicates this thread is to examine and present William Lane Craig's
views on the value and role of EVIDENCE in Christian Apologetics as he presents
those views in his major work on this subject, Reasonable Faith.

____________________

To start the ball rolling . . .

William Lane Craig, quoting Henry Dodwell, says this:

"Dodwell argues that matters of religious faith lie outside the determination of reason.
God could not possibly have intended that reason should be the faculty to lead us to
faith, for faith cannot hang indefinitely in suspense while reason cautiously weighs
and reweighs arguments. The Scriptures teach, on the contrary, that the way to
God is by means of the heart, not by means of the intellect. Faith is the gift of the
Holy Spirit." __William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, page 35

Then Craig says a few pages later, "I think that Dodwell . . . [is] correct that,
fundamentally, the way we know Christianity is true is by the self-authenticating
witness of God's Holy Spirit. Now what do I mean by that? I mean that the
experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical [truthful] and unmistakable . . . for him
who has it; that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or
evidence in order to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the
Spirit of God . . ."__William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, page 43

So clearly William Lane Craig, one of America's most popular and influential Christian
Apologist, agrees with Henry Dodwell. Then earlier on page 39, Craig says that he
agrees with Plantinga that belief in God is "both rational and warranted wholly apart
from an evidental foundations for belief."

Says William Lane Craig:
"Alvin Plantinga has launched a sustained attack on theological rationalism.
Plantinga maintains that belief in God and in the central doctrines of
Christianity is both rational and warranted wholly apart from any evidential
foundations for belief."__William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, page 39



`

`

 

[OzSpen]

As the title indicates this thread is to examine and present William Lane Craig's
views on the value and role of EVIDENCE in Christian Apologetics as he presents
those views in his major work on this subject, Reasonable Faith.

____________________

To start the ball rolling . . .

William Lane Craig, quoting Henry Dodwell, says this:

"Dodwell argues that matters of religious faith lie outside the determination of reason.
God could not possibly have intended that reason should be the faculty to lead us to
faith, for faith cannot hang indefinitely in suspense while reason cautiously weighs
and reweighs arguments. The Scriptures teach, on the contrary, that the way to
God is by means of the heart, not by means of the intellect. Faith is the gift of the
Holy Spirit." __William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, page 35

Then Craig says a few pages later, "I think that Dodwell . . . [is] correct that,
fundamentally, the way we know Christianity is true is by the self-authenticating
witness of God's Holy Spirit. Now what do I mean by that? I mean that the
experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical [truthful] and unmistakable . . . for him
who has it; that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or
evidence in order to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the
Spirit of God . . ."__William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, page 43

So clearly William Lane Craig, one of America's most popular and influential Christian
Apologist, agrees with Henry Dodwell. Then earlier on page 39, Craig says that he
agrees with Plantinga that belief in God is "both rational and warranted wholly apart
from an evidental foundations for belief."

Says William Lane Craig:
"Alvin Plantinga has launched a sustained attack on theological rationalism.
Plantinga maintains that belief in God and in the central doctrines of
Christianity is both rational and warranted wholly apart from any evidential
foundations for belief."__William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, page 39

JAG,

So what is your understanding of what Dr Craig says about the value of evidence and Holy Spirit witness in Christian apologetics?

Elsewhere he has written:

So how do we know that Jesus is risen from the dead? The Easter hymnwriter says, “You ask me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart!” This answer is perfectly appropriate on an individual level. But when Christians engage unbelievers in the public square—such as in “Letters to the Editor” of a local newspaper, on call-in programs on talk-radio, at PTA meetings, or even just in conversation with co-workers—, then it’s crucial that we be able to present objective evidence in support of our beliefs. Otherwise our claims hold no more water than the assertions of anyone else claiming to have a private experience of God.

Fortunately, Christianity, as a religion rooted in history, makes claims that can in important measure be investigated historically (William Lane Craig, The Resurrection of Jesus).
​

Then Dr Craig presents facts about the resurrection. Here he emphasises the importance of evidence when interacting about Jesus and our faith with secular people.

Oz

 

[Edward]

Elsewhere he has written:

So how do we know that Jesus is risen from the dead? The Easter hymnwriter says, “You ask me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart!” This answer is perfectly appropriate on an individual level. But when Christians engage unbelievers in the public square—such as in “Letters to the Editor” of a local newspaper, on call-in programs on talk-radio, at PTA meetings, or even just in conversation with co-workers—, then it’s crucial that we be able to present objective evidence in support of our beliefs. Otherwise our claims hold no more water than the assertions of anyone else claiming to have a private experience of God.

Isn't this supposed to be subjective evidence, as opposed to objective evidence?

1 Peter 3:15.....

 

[chessman]

Isn't this supposed to be subjective evidence, as opposed to objective evidence?

1 Peter 3:15.....

Both.

1 Peter 3:15-16, 18 (NASB) but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts [subjective], always being ready to make a defense [objective] to everyone who asks you to give an account [objective] for the hope that is in you [subjective], yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame [objective and subjective]. ...
For Christ also died [objective] for sins once for all, the just [objective] for the unjust [objective] , so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh [objective], but made alive [objective] in the spirit;
​

WLC will typically present his final evidence for God's existence as "... and you can have a relationship with Him too ..." [subjective and objective]

 

[OzSpen]

Both.

1 Peter 3:15-16, 18 (NASB) but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts [subjective], always being ready to make a defense [objective] to everyone who asks you to give an account [objective] for the hope that is in you [subjective], yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revi

Both.

1 Peter 3:15-16, 18 (NASB) but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts [subjective], always being ready to make a defense [objective] to everyone who asks you to give an account [objective] for the hope that is in you [subjective], yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame [objective and subjective]. ...
For Christ also died [objective] for sins once for all, the just [objective] for the unjust [objective] , so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh [objective], but made alive [objective] in the spirit;
​

WLC will typically present his final evidence for God's existence as "... and you can have a relationship with Him too ..." [subjective and objective]

le your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame [objective and subjective]. ...
For Christ also died [objective] for sins once for all, the just [objective] for the unjust [objective] , so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh [objective], but made alive [objective] in the spirit;
​

WLC will typically present his final evidence for God's existence as "... and you can have a relationship with Him too ..." [subjective and objective]

chessman,

In citing 1 Peter 3:15, 'but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you', is 'a defence' [apologia] objective, historical evidence for Jesus or does it also include the subjective, 'This is what Jesus has done in my life' - giving an account of the hope in you?

Are you now back in the USA from the land Down Under?

Oz

 

[chessman]

is 'a defence' [apologia] objective, historical evidence for Jesus or does it also include the subjective,

I believe Peter's intention was for the apologia to be both objective and subjective.

It is objectively true that Jesus died and rose In order to justify the unjust.

The word translated "account" is "logon" (noun fom). It literally means:
[3056 (lógos) is a common term (used 330 times in the NT) with regards to a person sharing a message (discourse, "communication-speech"). 3056 (lógos) is a broad term meaning "reasoning expressed by words."]

WLC gives both subjective and objective reasons for His hope within. And he's a Spock/logical type person.

Are you now back in the USA from the land Down Under?

Yes. Spent almost three weeks down under. What a wonderful country. To be honest, I found that the average non-Christian citizen there seemed to care more for their 'neighbors' than the average 'Christian' in the US cares. I got the distinct impression that you guys honestly cared for your fellow citizens' well being more than we do in the US. At least in this life.

 

[JAG ..]

`
JAG,
So what is your understanding of what Dr Craig says about
the value of evidence and Holy Spirit witness in Christian
apologetics?

♦ Oz, I will answer your question in the days ahead.

♦ I plan to put some more Craig points and quotes in the thread
as time permits.

♦ And to spend some time analyzing Craig's position on the
role, value, and need for Christian Apologetics.

♦ Before this thread is over, some may reach the conclusion
that Craig contradicts himself on the need for, and value of
Christian Apologetics. Of course . . .

♦ I don't know how much interest this OP will generate in the subject
of Craig's View Of The Role And Value Of Evidence In Christian
Apologetics, maybe very little interest.

♦ Meanwhile here are two more brief quotes in addition to the
Dodwell and Plantinga quote.

(1) " . . . the role of rational argumentation in knowing Christianity to be
true is the role of a servant. A person knows Christianity is true because
the Holy Spirit tells him it is true, and while arguments and evidence can
be used to support this conclusion, they cannot legitimately overrule
it . . ." __William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, page 51

(2) ". . .I'd say that with most people there's no need to use apologetics
at all . . . " __William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, page 57

`

 

[OzSpen]

I believe Peter's intention was for the apologia to be both objective and subjective.

It is objectively true that Jesus died and rose In order to justify the unjust.

The word translated "account" is "logon" (noun fom). It literally means:
[3056 (lógos) is a common term (used 330 times in the NT) with regards to a person sharing a message (discourse, "communication-speech"). 3056 (lógos) is a broad term meaning "reasoning expressed by words."]

WLC gives both subjective and objective reasons for His hope within. And he's a Spock/logical type person.

Yes. Spent almost three weeks down under. What a wonderful country. To be honest, I found that the average non-Christian citizen there seemed to care more for their 'neighbors' than the average 'Christian' in the US cares. I got the distinct impression that you guys honestly cared for your fellow citizens' well being more than we do in the US. At least in this life.

chessman,

I agree that apologetics has to include both the objective and the subjective. While WLC has an incredible intellect, he uses it to the glory of God and promotes a relationship with the Lord.

I agree that many secular Aussies do seem to have a Good Samaritan approach to life. On TV news tonight, there was an example of a vehicle that had careered off the road and a number of passers by on this remote road stopped to help.

I only have a small lawn in the front of my house and my non-Christian neighbour sometimes mows it for me when he sees it is growing longer. When I thanked him for it a couple of days ago, his cool reply was: When I see that you need a help, I hope I can be a help.

I don't plan on going to Woomera, but I wouldn't mind going to the outback Qld town of Winton which is the birthplace of our national airline, Qantas.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

(2) ". . .I'd say that with most people there's no need to use apologetics
at all . . . " __William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, page 57
`

JAG,

That may be so in the USA but it is not so in a very secular Australia where evidence needs to be produced regularly.

A 75-year-old woman from the seniors' group in my church teaches religious instruction (RI) to grade 1 children (age 6) in a local public school. This week, one child asked: 'Where did God come from?' She was stumped for an answer so we discussed how to explain this in language for young children.

In the same class, another child asked, 'Why do we need God?'

Marj teaches that class with another woman her age. Around an afternoon tea at a local Coffee Club, we discussed these topics with 3 other Christians . Marj thinks these questions are fuelled by the parents of the children, but nevertheless, the children asked some profound apologetic questions this week in RI. The RI teacher wants good answers for young minds.

Oz