Q&A Panel | UnApologetic Conference 2017 - Corpus Christi, TX

[Music] well I want to open the floor for questions you can start making your way to the microphone if you would like to ask a question if you have a specific person you would like to address the question - please let us know that as well we've already got one go ahead this is probably for Mike and probably for Bill - in the Bible we have that the the stoning of the woman caught in adultery or the attempt they were going to stone a woman in adultery and a lot of when I read a lot of scholars they debate whether or not this was an actual text or systems of the later edition added by a scribe and I was going to ask what your opinions on this particular matter were and how to deal with questions about that how did that have to deal with it that's a great question and the answer is we we don't know a whole lot yet what I can tell you is that the majority scholarly opinion right now is that the story of the woman caught in adultery that Jesus said you know he is without sin let him cast the first stone but that was not in the original of John and that that's why the brackets are there innocence is not found in the oldest or the most reliable manuscripts now that is not to say that the story never occurred a lot of scholars who think that it didn't appear there in John do think that the story is authentic but at the end of the day we just don't know I have a friend who did his PhD his doctoral research on this text and he went into it wanting to show that this was in the original Gospel of John and he came out saying I just don't know so it's hard to say maybe it wasn't in the original Gospel of John maybe it was in a second edition of the Gospel of John I'm reading a story right now by a guy named Sid Phillips he passed away a couple years ago and he was in World War two a vet and I was reading started reading on the plane ride down here and that he said you know as I'm going through this and I'm writing this book and some other stories come to mind and I throw it in there so I go back and I insert these in he said so maybe John wrote the gospel and then later on he thought oh I forgot about this story and in the second edition he included in I don't know even some people think that hate the way that this is laid out is more Lucan and there are some manuscripts were the stories in Luke not John so we just don't know we just don't know casting the question to believe in Sola scriptura do I believe in Sola scriptura and and by that you are saying what because there are a lot of people who may not understand what you're saying like all of Scripture is god-breathed and there are no errors or what would your I guess the better way to phrase it would be what were your definition of Sola scriptura well if you're asking do I believe the Bible is divinely inspired I'd say yes do I believe it's in without any error I'd say yes it's without error and all that it teaches and all that it affirms so that's how I would answer that okay dr. Craig did you want to add anything what was it well except that that's not what Sola scriptura means Sola scriptura is one of the watchwords of the Reformation which means scripture alone is the authority in matters of faith and practice not church tradition as the Catholic Church held Catholic Church placed church tradition on equal ground with Scripture and the Protestant reformers affirmed Sola only script to our scripture alone is authoritative in faith and practice so that's the proper meaning of the term you were using it to designate something different okay yeah okay thank you are there others I'd like to come forward nice question yeah um I really enjoyed your your presentation there dr. Craig I really like the the in aspect of the fine-tuning and I thought that was good that was fascinating that was really neat it seems as our scientific knowledge and understanding is increasing it seems like scientists are twisting themselves more and more to find explanations beyond what you're saying and I don't know that this is a new one but it's it seems now that there's kind of this idea that all of this is a simulation you know and I'm hearing this and and reading about this and I think it's baloney but it seems to be an idea that is is some people are embracing just because it you know it's an explanation without being an explanation weren't if you have any any answer for any thoughts on that I think what you're referring to is the idea that the universe is some sort of hologram none of us actually exists yeah I think that that's philosophically absurd as Descartes taught us long ago I at least exist because if I doubt that I exist there who's doing the doubting and I think that card is absolutely right in saying that it's it's impossible to deny one's own existence because in denying that you exist you affirm that you exist so I at least exist and so even if the world as I said in the or as the video says is a projection of my brain that I have all that exists nevertheless that still cries out for some explanation and I I think that we would never have good reason for believing such a hypothesis in order to deny the reliability of our senses that there is a world of external objects around us we would have to have a very very powerful defeater of that belief a belief or meaning a defeater that is more powerfully war said than the belief that the world is real and I cannot imagine what sort of a defeater would fit that condition so one would never be justified in believing such a thing and I guess my follow-up question would be why do these things persist I mean it they seemed self-evidently ludicrous and this you know it seems like I do think to be honest with you that part of this is the popular press coverage of science the popular press does not understand science and as a result it systematically promotes the sensational the outrageous the outlandish because this is what is a headline grabber and I think many professional scientists themselves despair of the way in which contemporary science is handled by the popular press it's an attempt at having sensationalism and very often the things that the popular press is touting are not really taken with great scientific seriousness I would just add to that on a more personal level I think a lot of times it's just people are looking for interesting theories that kind of side take you up on rabbit trails of philosophical speculation rather than letting the truth get to them you know Romans 1 says even though they know what is true they suppress the truth and they look for other beliefs and other theories and I know as I share my faith with people often they will raise you know what seems like a good objection and I give what I think seems like a good answer and rather than going oh okay that's really helpful they realize okay that's not working so they throw out something else and I give what I think is a good answer to that and they go to the next thing and about four or five levels into this I some just go timeout can I just be really honest with you and they go sure I say I feel like you're working harder at finding excuses not to consider what I'm talking about then you are at finding the truth and you know the Bible says we should be lovers of truth I think I think that's a good philosophy for anyone whether they believe the Bible or not let's love what's real let's let's let's pursue what's right and what's true and I think I'm giving you a lot of truth and it seems to me like you're trying to dodge it and I've actually asked me like oh can I just ask you honestly is there some reason you don't want this to be true or is there something in your life you're afraid you'd have to give up or change if it is true and I bet people admit to me you know that well I you know I know that if I admit God's real or the Bible's true that God's going to want to change my sex life or he's going to want to change this or that I'm going that you're probably right and I'm pretty sure this is the real issue now not whether we're some projected experiment from some mind somewheres whatever their theory was so I think sometimes it's just a Dodge and I think sometimes we just have to kind of pull it back and get honest get real with people and and some of them will go with us on that and again I think that's helping to remove barriers and get back to the real mission which is to present Christ and the gospel to them a great point next next question hi I'm Danielle I have two questions wanting to follow up on by polymerase II and how's that afford a DS and I'm thinking of the passages in the Bible that said the God actually wasn't kill and all that so I'm trying to understand how Bible still ignorant and present this God and if it's not inherently it actually errors even in translation or in the ways which we produce how is that fool the authority given our life let me restate the question make sure that we're following it sounds like what you're saying if the Bible is true in an and there's passages of scripture that talk about God commanding people to be killed in the Old Testament for example how do we reconcile things like that Mike do you want to start by answering that one well sure I mean why would that not why would that negate the inerrancy of the Bible oh my god sue Fleck sends a character of God okay well that could reflect on the character of God that would just mean we might not at very worst if we couldn't explain some of that we'd say well we may not like the character of God but it would mean the Bible has an error in it it would mean that we might be have an erroneous view of God all right it wouldn't mean the Bible is not inerrant is not consistent in the passages but you can't have them conflict with you the passages are you are you like saying like the first one of the 10 commandment says thou shalt not kill but then if God kills then he's breaking his own commandment is that kind of that's like in a way would be a conflict so we'll show some sort of like error within the way we have the Bible right now and if we accept there are some errors in the Bible then how is that afford a to be know why so I put your arguments like it seems inconsistent I said maybe nothing sort of error but it seems inconsistent from what you're saying for God to say not to kill and forgot to be good but yet on the other hand have passages where he is commanding people to you know to wipe out a particular you know country those kinds of things have you had addressed to read what I've written on this yeah yeah I don't like closet here what was closet clear so I was like hoping you would you mean explanation well I wasn't clear on the website reasonable faith dot-org question of the week number 16 addresses this and I try to lay out a model of God and the and his commands that would make sense of this and would make it consistent and I've never received date a reputation of this from any a theist or internet infidel in our diet that's what they call themself on the in our dialogue in Australia Lawrence Krauss raised this issue and in the course of the dialogue he finally admitted that yes I had succeeded in showing but there's no inconsistency between God's being all loving and all just and his issuing these commands to annihilate the Canaanites so I'd invite you just to look at that and ponder what I see there and see if it doesn't remove the inconsistency I returned to that issue around question of the week number 328 or so and and three to the second type and I don't want to take our time now going into it but look at what I've said and see if it doesn't make sense of this okay the other question I had I'd like to know your opinion on God's relationship with time and how that affects the way we see prayer and how we relate to prayer so what God really should be time how do we see God God's God's relationship to tell them and how that relates to prayer in other words if God's outside of time or intellect I should warn you he's written like a three-volume both on there how much time you got let me see this I think the prayer changes things not in the sense that it changes God's mind but in the sense that God knew whether we would pray or not and if we would pray he may have providentially decided to do certain things that he would not have done had he known we would not pray so in that sense our prayers really make a difference in the course of world history because God's actions can be contingent upon how he knew we would pray and he can know how we would pray whether he's in time or timeless I think that's not germane to the question question is does God know he does God know how we would act in any situation in which he might put us and I think he does have that kind of knowledge and using that sort of knowledge then he can providentially order the world so that your prayers really do make a difference okay so like let me make sure that I understood that so no Marys god it's outside the time or not like he would in all his knowledge knew that I'm going to pray and he decided based on his previous knowledge of the fact I will pray tomorrow no no you're talking about foreknowledge you said is previous knowledge of how you will pray I'm talking about a very special kind of knowledge it's knowledge of what are called subjunctive conditionals these are statements if-then statements in the subjunctive mood not the indicative mood we English speakers aren't very good with the subjunctive mood but it would be conditionals like this if I were rich I would buy a Mercedes Benz if I have not pulled out into traffic I would not have been hit by the oncoming car if I were to ask the boss for a raise he would raise my salary those are if-then statements in the subjunctive mood they're called counterfactuals because typically what they envision is not factual it's it's a condition that if it were like this then this is the way it would be and so what I'm saying is whether God's in time or out of time because he's omniscient he knows if you were to pray or if you were in this situation you would pray for this and so he can set things up so that that prayer has consequences that he would not set up if he knew that you would not have prayed in those circumstances so in other words pretty yeah prayer makes a difference that's the bottom line very significant depend upon who you ask or who you talk to you'll find out the earth is so many years old if you read the Bible you might literally take it it six seven eight maybe ten thousand years if you ask a science teacher they might say two or three million but every person I talked to regardless of where they come from always has some number random that's out there nobody no two people agree and to follow up with it you starting to hear the stuff about earth is flat okay what's up with all this I mean why can't we come up with what the answer is and then be done with it I'll take the last part there it's not flat so any place I've ever seen that as on the internet but I mean I'll just take the first stab at this on the very specific I know a lot of people believe based on adding up the genealogies in the Old Testament which Bishop Ussher did a long time ago and he I ended up the ages and that's how he got to what is typically called the young earth position that the earth is like eight thousand years old you may know this but for those of you that don't there's real problems with trying to add up the age of man alone never mind the earth of the cosmos based on genealogies because in the Bible the way they would record genealogies they often they would say so and so begat so and so but they skipped generations they would just sometimes hit high points in the you know different eras of that bloodline so when it says so and so begat so doesn't necessarily mean that was father and son it may be great-great-great-great grandfather with great-great great-grandson so that's a faulty way to add up and determine almost like all in Jesus the son David in a sense or Alana tree it means he's in the lineage of David not necessarily that case clearly not the son of so and besides all that then that you know there's a separate question how old the earth is how old the cosmos is and so on I'm pretty sure we're probably all on similar pages on this that we would not hold that Christians need to hold a young earth view and that there's a lot of reasons probably not to biblical and scientific though I don't try to talk people out of it I guess I'll say one more thing about it and in hand a baton to the other guys I think one of the problems is Christians aiming their guns at each other and wanting to attack each other over the edge of the earth and I think that's aiming the guns the wrong way I think our real enemy is not each other and debates on the edge of the earth I think it's scientific naturalism which tries to say somehow it all got here without God I think that's the enemy and I think that's where we need to focus our our efforts and our energy to defeat this idea that somehow it all came about without an intelligence without a without design without a creator and we would be wise to go after that rather than fighting each other on the age of the earth very good thank you all right next question dr. Craig of sorry I'm not a bunch of a public speaker I in your previous presentation you said something that I had a question about I think I might also have an answer I just want to know how close I was to write on this you were saying that because of the if the universe is infinitely old it would basically not have ever reached present because it would have to cross the infinite gap of time to get there the question would be how that fit in with an infinitely old God and getting there is that because God is outside of time and actually elsewhere and so being timeless the same argument would not apply yes okay like it simply I didn't have one other one other questions about what he was saying there I'm sorry I honestly I didn't go to your presentation mark mark sorry sir mark when's the genealogy thing I get that you can have somebody say so so forget so-and-so and it be a ancestral thing but it also says so to lived X number of years then begats own so live X number more years and then died wouldn't that tend to indicate that even if it was great-grandfather that it happened 400 years after the birth of the great-grandfather that the great grandson was born I don't think so because if it's not listing every member every person then it doesn't matter how long that one lived if there were eight generations gap you know of a gap in between for instance if you look at Matthew chapter one you'll see the whole summary of the biblical genealogy summed up I think is it two or three sets of 14 I think it's it's kind of put into a pattern but even if you give the ages of certain ones I don't think you can add up to get get there but the key problem I have with that is that in the passage is a New Testament it states the number of the people but not it in the same way anyway the lifespans with the other one it's not the fact that they say he lived X number of years if it said Methuselah lived 979 years and begat Noah I know he didn't but you know its name there it would still not have any bearing on the timeline but if he says he lived four hundred years then begat Noah and then lived five hundred seventy-nine years it would seem to be indicative of a more concrete time like that gives you how long it was before birth and how long was active Bertha this other person who supposedly well but I think there's still the assumption that the next person is always the son of as opposed to in the lay made job and when you look at comparisons even in the Old Testament between different genealogies there are gaps in all of them so I don't think it's a good way to get there but again my goal tonight isn't to talk you out of that I I do think it's important though for those of us that grew up with a King James Version of the Bible that says 4004 BC above Genesis 1:1 to know that that is not in the writings of Scripture that's not Genesis 1 a you know that is an interpretive idea that someone who at one time published the King James Bible added you know based on Bishop Ussher z-- adding up to the genealogy put that in there but that's not in the Bible there is the Bible nowhere says how old mankind is or how old the earth is but again I to me I like the kinds of arguments that you heard from dr. Craig tonight that the sidestep what I think is really kind of an intramural debate among Christians in most cases and gets to the evidence that really goes after the idea that somehow this could have all happened without God and I that's why I think we need to put our focus there all right let's get the next question when you guys is favorite or one of your favorite Bible verses and why watch all three answer that one good Anolon hear what your favorite favorite bible verse and what i don't really have one see that's why I said one of your favorite cuz I didn't wanted to confirm John 3:16 it's the only one he could think of when I sign my books I always inscribe under my signature second Corinthians 10:5 which has become a kind of life eternal for me it says we destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God taking every thought captive to obey Christ and I see that as my calling that's often the one I just signed some books and that's what I put in as well and that's one of my favorites but I think we'd all say in different contexts you have different verses you know when you're you're suffering you're struggling you're you know dealing with personal issues we probably all turn to the Psalms you know other times you're looking for other kinds of information or help you turn to other sources but one other one I often write is John 8:32 that you shall know the truth and the truth will set you free and I love that because I'm an apologist by more than that I'm an evangelist and so I view truth very much as not just something to know and understand and debate and talk about but as the key to life is the key to being set free from all kinds of bondages and sin and you know given new life through the truth in Christ so that's one of my favorites well and I have to come to the mic O'Connor's defense he's actually memorized the entire Sermon on the Mount he was quoting portions of it to us as we were walking on the beach talking theology early today so I did that before that's why I can joke about it because Mike's written the book about this big but just the biblical stuff on the resurrection he knows what I believe is Barack he's forgotten more Bible than I know I have one more question yes sir it's a small one but I know everybody has taught about what came first the chicken or the egg because I mean you're super smart and they're people that aren't super smart but we all think the same thing you know I mean so is dr. price all right you don't know I was in your video I saw the chicken and then the egg yeah I noticed that you guys don't know is it I was in Costco about a month ago and coming up to the counter and some guy was purchasing eggs and and the cashier said yeah well what came first the chicken or the egg I don't know I don't know and I said well I don't think the egg would have gotten there by chance and I don't think the chicken would have either so probably God created the chicken who laid the egg and they just looked at each other and then check knowing what a great gadget that's a great evangelism tool right there you ask a philosophical question like which came frozen chicken the egg and then you you introduce that into a gospel presentation about God creating the chicken well there you go that's great right tool all right next question what highest questions for dr. Craig we usually have a theist saying that faith and reason are opposites but it as I've come across certain Christian Christians who say the same thing I have a quote here this person says there's simply no proof offered for God that I find convincing except for praxis I don't need everything to align in either or fashion to believe in God apologetics force has got to be rational according to human terms God is known but he is also mystery so my question is how do you respond to Christians who who dismiss reason in the life of faith I think I would turn to scripture because these folks would tend to believe what the Bible says and I would try to show them that the practice of Jesus and the Apostles in proclaiming the the kingdom of God was not simply to proclaim it but to give evidence and arguments for it and this is especially evident in the book of Acts if you go through the book of Acts and see Paul's evangelistic strategy in the Mediterranean cities he would visit he would go first to the synagogue in the town and begin to argue and that's the word it uses argue with the Jews trying to persuade them that Jesus is a messiah and then he would go to the marketplace where he would Proctor the Gentiles in one city he rented a lecture hall and for a year gave daily lectures in the Hall of teranas persuading people and arguing for the truth of Christianity so when you look at the example of Jesus and the Apostles I think it just makes it very evident that they were not afraid or reluctant to give argument and evidence in favor of what they believed did that mean they didn't trust the Holy Spirit of course not rather they trusted the Holy Spirit to use their arguments in evidence in order to draw people to himself I would just add evangelistically this guy whoever said that has unilaterally disarmed because when they let's say if this person has a son or a daughter that goes away to school and comes back and says I no longer believe in God because it doesn't make sense to me what do you love to say well it doesn't really have to make sense you just have to trust it you just have to believe it you have to experience it well then they go yeah I grew up with a dad but now I don't buy it anymore and well I think we have a whole lot more to say at that point about why it makes sense why it's true where the evidence points and so on but if we want to just say no it's just it's a mystical thing then what are you left but to say well son I hope you have a mystical experience someday yeah yeah I think you know and besides the fact that Paul used apologetics Jesus did Jesus said if you don't believe my words then look at my works look at my miracle and so I think we just need to do what Jesus did what Paul did and in the real world that makes a bigger you know big difference it doesn't always win people over to give them some reasons to consider it mm-hmm thank you good work next question so guys so I have a lot of questions but I know there's a lot of people behind me so I kind of keep it kind of short obviously I just graduated from the University recently and I studied biology and so my question would be about biology so I know it might be attacked for a lot of questions but God does make sense I believe in God and I know we have proof like simple one is the conscience every you know every civilization in history has had a conscience they've had morals and stuff and so what my question is in regards to Genesis 1 and 2 I know there's I'm very familiar with Ken Ham and Ray Comfort but I'm also very familiar with Richard Dawkins and all these other guys and so a lot of times they both make sense but it's kind of hard to trust you know and it's not even about the age of the earth but trust you know evolution and how it goes into the Bible for example Adam and Eve I know through the fossil records we have a lot of like proof of you know us changing over time through you know certain species and things like that and but the Bible just says we were created as human being and that was it and and then we see a lot of I'm going to keep it short but we see a lot of things that kind of I feel I want to say contradict but kind of go against science and evolution but also like the scripture if that makes any sense like Adam and Eve denote the flood Noah and about the past for example the dinosaurs and so my question is how do we make sense of all that with Scripture and science and how do we make a decision you know jji that are an enormous ly wide-ranging question literally right a limit of a little bit to the question of biological evolution since that's your area sure I am persuaded that once you give up the idea that Genesis teaches that the world is created in six consecutive 24-hour days then it doesn't say anything about how God brought biological life-forms into existence whether he used means whether he did it by Fiat immediately it it just doesn't say all it says is God said let there be and and there was and so I I would my short answer to you would be this as a as a biologist I would say follow the evidence where it leads stay true to your your Christian convictions and then be the skeptical of of what you hear chase it down and follow the evidence where it leads and I think that you'll be alright my J I Packer is a evangelical highly regarded Christian theologian he was one of the three guys involved in crafting the Chicago statement of biblical inerrancy which is one of the most conservative positions on the Bible and describing it in terms of its inspiration and authority Packer has publicly said that Genesis one in its entirety is a quasi liturgical celebration of the fact of creation and is not meant to be understood as a description of what we would have seen had we been hovering above the chaos he goes on to say that I was the tree of life in the tree of good and evil were were they actual trees in the garden he said I don't know trees we're poetic devices used in that sort of literature he even goes too far to say was there a serf who tempted Eve in the garden system I don't know he says maybe not maybe we don't know he said but the underlying message about in Genesis that God created and that we have fallen that's what's important and so oh and he also said about evolution he said Genesis doesn't say anything one way or the other in terms of evolution now when I heard packer say that Wow here is one of the most conservative evangelical theologians out there who is making this kind of statement and so that just kind of freed me up and as Wow you know if a conservative highly regarded Christian theologian can say that I don't need to dig in and embrace any particular view in terms of creation whether it's older young or theistic evolution or whatever what's important is that God created okay next time thank you for the opportunity to ask a question probably to dr. Middleburg some of the issues that you brought up we're kind of what I was going to ask about I grew up in Salt Lake City Utah my dad is a Southern Baptist pastor there so I grew up really needing to have a good grasp on the fullness of what I believed but I've noticed a shift in how we evangelize which is why we're here talking about apologetics but certainly it used to be that you could appeal more to the that ethos you know and get and people understood their need for God and now it's more of a you know that that idea that there is no God and I hate him and but any what like what ravi zacharias talked about that philosophical pre commitment to I you know there just can't be a God because I need my life to be like this and I was wondering what you would attribute that shift to and certainly I know that the gospel is an offense to people who are who are lost but what you would attribute that shift to and how you overcome that idea you know when when people are so lied to the truth is offensive and that they're more willing so much so that they're more willing to believe that extraterrestrials are the higher power that's one thing I've encountered several times I just can't I can't accept that it's God it could be aliens like what John Lennox says well people ask you if I believe there could be extraterrestrial life he goes yeah I believe in one big one I'm actually tomorrow morning in my main session going to talk about the the drift of the whole culture toward to secularism I don't know that I give a lot of reasons you know I don't break down a lot of how it happened as much as what's happening in how we need to respond to it as apologists and evangelists but certainly the culture has drifted further and further away from a Christian worldview I think a lot of that has to do with taking going way beyond what the founders of the country intended with separation of church and state to the point where it's separation of the citizen from the whole idea of God and having many people who run our schools and our universities being committed secularists that you know what you get taught often in school situations secular universities is an anti theistic view so I think that's all had its effect but I would quickly add that we don't usually at least in our individual efforts to reach friends or family members for Christ we don't evangelize a culture we evangelize individuals and it was interesting when you said you grew up in Salt Lake City and you said your dad I thought you're gonna say he let a Mormon Church there with all of his legs yes would you say with all of his wives yeah with all of his lives and you have a very large family I suppose but they are from I'm wearing background so we do how are you okay well and the reason I bring that up is to say because I shared my faith with many Mormon and when you talk to most Mormons they do have a higher view of Scripture they course have a broader canon of what they consider your scripture but you can appeal to scripture and you know so a lot of the apologetics you would do there would be more of a traditional biblical apologetics thing that's not what John was saying here or Luke or Jesus or and and and I so I think it's a person relative approach if your time someone that already believes the Bible then and they believe in God you don't need to give them philosophical proofs for the existence of God you're just covering territory you already agree with so the nature of apologetics and really persuasion in general is to figure out where a person is now and where they need to be and then take them from point A to point B and if again if point A includes a high view of Scripture then start with Scripture but a point a doesn't even believe in God then you're gonna have to do some other things to point to the existence of God so I think on a practical level that would be my main advice is to try to relate you know become Alton Paul Paul said in first Corinthians 9 become all things to all people you know to the Jew I'm like a Jew to those outside the law I'm like one outside the law whatever it is wherever they're coming from I do my best to I think what he's saying is to establish common ground with them so that I can bring them to the point of trusting in Christ thank you great word next question hi my question is how can we help people understand that the fact that we all have free will and also the fact that God knows all of our choices beforehand do you think that there's an incompatibility between gods for knowing everything and there being free will I don't think so but how can we make people other people understand that I are one well one thing you can do is to show how it's logically fallacious to think that because God for knows the future therefore everything happens necessarily and what you would do is show them an argument that would go like this premise one would be necessarily if god foreknows X then X will happen premise two would be God for knows X and then ask what follows from those two premises necessarily if God poor knows X X will happen and God for knows X if they think that what follows from that is that necessarily X will happen then they have committed a logical fallacy that in fact does not follow from those two premises all that follows from those two premises is that X will happen but X will not happen necessarily X could fail to happen but if it were to fail to happen then God would have for known differently see there's those subjunctive conditionals again that are so important so from God's foreknowledge of the future you can know what will happen but it doesn't mean that it will happen necessarily it could fail to happen but if it were to fail to happen then God's foreknowledge would have been different and therefore his knowledge of the future is entirely compatible with contingency and freedom and possibility and so forth it's a huge error on the part of certain theologians called open theists who think that in order to preserve the contingency and openness of the future you have to deny God's foreknowledge of the future that's a logical mistake I try to sum it up by saying God fully for knows what I will freely do Hey hey Bill I had an idea I'd like to run it past you and see what you think of course there's no perfect illustration sorry but let's suppose that I video recorded the Super Bowl and I know the end result now when I go back and I watch the Super Bowl each of the players had complete free will and what they were doing in the coach all right let's punt it rather than going for the field goal for the Falcons at the end so and Bill and I are both live in the Atlanta area so he knows what I'm talking about but all right so I know what they're going to do but they had total free will in the process to make that but I knew before I watch it on the on the DVR and knew what they were going to do so just having foreknowledge of what they're going to do doesn't impact the fact that they had free will I think that's right my knowledge isn't a causal factor in this is it whether you knew what the end of the video was or you didn't know what the end of the video was doesn't affect what the people on the video do they do whatever they want freely and you're just knowing about it doesn't change anything really all right next question hi I'd like Leah judge my question to the three of you touched on a little bit with dr. lakorn I mentioned earlier about the digging with the knowledge that you guys have and the scientific community that against you is there anything in particular that provokes you for instance Ravi Zacharias I believe wrote a book as a response to Sam Harris's a letter to a Christian nation the end of faith and I think I believe he wrote a book called the end of Reason as a response to that book is there anything in particular nowadays that provokes you or not provoked see but stumped you in in a way where you believe requires a response because I think you guys covered a lot of ground from the work I've seen and I first of all I admire a lot of what you do because it I think a lot of Christians believe that but not a lot of Christians but sometimes Christians people think that the Christian community we check our brains at the door and when we listen to you guys defend our faith I think that's something that comes that helps my faith as well what is it is there anything that nowadays dumps you and how do you react to it what is the what is the thought process or what does that look like in your world when you when people of your intellect gets dumped or how does like dr. Craig's ever been stumped so mark why don't you take that one happens to me all the time I just call dr. Craig and get the answer I don't know about stumped but I will acknowledge readily that for me and probably for most apologists the hardest thing is when it has to do with personal suffering when someone's going through something that just doesn't seem right it's not fair it's where is God in this and the answer is I mean we live in an unfair world where bad things happen to good people where things are not right where the books have not been balanced in terms of justice and and so on and so for me that's the hardest thing and it's usually a QA like this where we're almost out of time we go we'll take one more question and that's always a mistake because if it's always some heart-rending story about some horrific thing that happened in someone's life and we're going okay we got 90 seconds to and there's just no way there's nothing I can say that's going to fix that or make anyone feel good about it or make it right and and I think we have a lot of good things and we've all written and talked about the problem of evil and pain and suffering I think I think the Christian worldview gives the best answers but ultimately there's not an answer that solves it or makes it go away and certainly that makes the pain go away so for me that's what feels the most like being stumped is wishing I could say more to make it better or make it go away now I understood the question to be is there something that provokes us into a response yes and when you first asked that I thought no because my work tends to be proactive rather than reactive I work on subjects that are of interest to me that I'm passionate about whether anybody else is or not I just fed over 12 years working on the relationship between God and abstract objects like numbers which it's not a vital burning concern to very many people so but but as I thought about your question it occurred to me actually that my current work is in a sense the result of provocation and and what it is is this I have been for many years now very disgruntled with my fellow Christian philosophers because of their weak thin doctrines and defenses of the atonement I have been wondering where is a robust defense of the coherence and truth of the Penal substitutionary theory of the atonement and instead all I get are these watery watered down then the tomlin theories by other Christian philosophers and the New Testament scholars some of them to like NT right have been just as bad and so I have been not really provoked in my spirit I think to work on this subject and so for the last year I've been devoting myself full time to a study of the doctrine of the atonement and I have to say that this has been on expectedly rich and rewarding I thought I understood the doctrine of the atonement until I began to do this study and new vistas and insights and depths have opened up to me that I never suspected were there and so I am so excited about the current work that I am doing on the atonement and anxious to begin publishing on this I have a lot of unanswered questions not there things that bother me I wouldn't they worry me I think one thing I've learned and I learned this from Gary Habermas a mentor of mine I would come to him and I'd say well what about this and what about this and he'd say did Jesus rise from the dead yeah okay well why is that bothering you okay so you know yeah but there's debate today amongst scholars who wrote Matthew did Matthew actually write the Gospel of Matthew well Mike did Jesus rise from the dead yeah well if Matthew didn't write Matthew would Christianity still be true if Jesus rose from the dead yeah well then why is it bothering you so much Bart Ehrman we've had five debates he and I and he would point out all these different contradictions and errors in the Bible and I said well I don't grant those to you Bart but look if Jesus rose from the dead if Jesus rose from the dead Christianity is true even if it were to be the case that some things in the Bible aren't and he agreed just like well what's the big deal then so that's the response that it has provoked for me I've used these so yes I have a lot of unanswered questions yes there are some things in the Bible that trouble me honestly I don't like to read the Old Testament so but I've learned to put things into perspective if Jesus rose from the dead Christianity is true period and that helps me keep the main thing the main thing and so I don't worry about a lot of these things anymore they don't really bother me nearly as much because it's all in perspective and now I've studied the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and I'm thoroughly convinced that it happened so these other things just don't bother me thank you right we'll never mind then I have a few questions but I'm going to narrow it down the old law who decided that was no war the old law the Old Testament law who decided that is no more oh I thought she was talking about Obamacare I answer that what answer would be Trump and so next question oh I has the old law as it hasn't been abolished is we just don't follow it anymore obviously we're not sacrificing goats and these kinds of things so how do you answer that what's happened to the Old Testament law well it isn't in the book of Acts the Jerusalem Council that was held by the mother church in Jerusalem decided that they would not impose the yoke of the law on the Gentile converts to Christianity they said just abstain from things strangled and from blood and sexual immorality and you don't need to obey the breasts of the law in order to be a Christian so the question would be is this a decision that the Jerusalem church just invented out of thin air or did this reflect the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth himself and in the Gospels there's some indications that Jesus himself thought that he was the fulfillment of the law when he said it's what goes comes out of a man that defiles the man not what goes into his mouth mark comments thus he declared all foods clean that is say mark interpret this as abolishing the distinction between the clean and unclean foods and then the next nu of the vision of Peter before he goes to Cornelius's home where that's confirmed through visions from God showing that the dietary laws were no longer also eliminate all the other ones as far as tattoos piercings haircuts clothing and all of those others like you find in Leviticus well certainly the decision of the Jerusalem Council shows that because they imposed very minimum requirements on the Gentiles to begin with excuse me neither one's in those laws to begin with floors that not only are they really the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem like James they're the ones that set those Old Testament laws no no they lived by them these laws that were inherited bring their fathers like what gave them the authority to say no longer do you have to live by those laws I'm sorry if they did not put those laws in place if it was God breathed then what gave the Jewish leaders the right to say no longer do you have to live by those laws well that that's exactly what I was reading did they come up with this out of there or was it due to the teachings of jesus the son of man who said that he had authority to do this sort of thing I suspect and I'm sure you'd agree that the act of the early action of the early church is reflecting the historical Jesus on this because he is the only one who had the authority to revise the Old Testament law I think it's clear that many now I got it many of the Old Testament laws for the Israelites were to keep them as a distinct nation until the coming of the Messiah and what does it say it plainly in the New Testament that Jesus told the leaders you don't have to do that here's another way to do it I guess people assumed it and I would say the biggest way the biggest way you have the sacrificial system of the Old Testament in when Jesus came it was announced here's the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world that he is the ultimate sacrifices the book of Hebrews makes very clear so I'd say in the biggest way the whole sacrificial system became obsolete when the son of God the Lamb of God died once and for all to pay for all sins and then I think God providentially allowed that all that whole sacrificial system to end with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD but I think there's a variety of answers of how God communicated that these are things that are asked of me and I would like to be able to give them a plainer answered the way you've explained it that makes sense and my other question is there any other writings on Jesus's life before his ministry but after he hits like twelve or thirteen years old are there any records of his life other than what's not in the Bible you mean before he bring like talking as a teenager in his twenties because you know he didn't become a minister he was like thirty yeah that's a good question well nothing that would be reliable you've got the infancy Gospel of Thomas that has some really weird stories about Jesus you know one is he was working with his dad as a carpenter and his dad cut a plank too short and uh you know I'm not going to make any money off of this and and Jesus said no problem pop and he goes over and he stretches the plank to the right thing so there's nothing reliable but it really shouldn't it shouldn't surprise us and the reason being is because all four Gospels are are either ancient biographies or they share a lot in common with the genre of ancient biography and an ancient biography the purpose of biography according to Plutarch not the guy in The Hunger Games but the real Plutarch who lived in the first century in the early second century he said the reason the purpose behind biography is to illuminate who the main character is what kind of a person are they morally and their ancestry I mean who is this person and they want to reveal the character of that person so typically what would happen in an ancient biography most of them that have survived we can see it talks a little about the person's ancestry and then it launches right into the inauguration of the person's public life be that politics or the military or as a philosopher teacher so there's very little in most biographies about a person's childhood and so it shouldn't surprise us at all that there's very little about Jesus childhood it has his ancestry you know you've got the genealogies in Matthew and Luke mark starts off by pretty much saying Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy and he's divine and then you've got John that comes out and says he's God amongst us in God incarnate so you've got that and then BOOM all four Gospels just launch right into their public Jesus is public ministry so you measure twice and cut once unless you're Jesus and you're okay all right next question this question is directed at dr. Craig actually glad that you explained subjective conditionals because my question is about Mullen ISM the only proof verse that I'm familiar for that conditional is Genesis 18 Abraham asking God if there's a righteous person in the city if he will spare it and God's response is God's response is that depending how do I question my question on God answers knowing what he will do but I'm not familiar with other verses where he knows what other people will do given their free will so are there other proof purses for God knowing what other people would do given a different situation um one of the most famous passages is in I can't give you the exact citation I think it's second Samuel it's the story of David who is holed up in the city of Kaila and he's being pursued by Saul and David gets a divining device called an ephod and asks the ephod if I stay at kyla will Saul come down and attack the city and the ephod says yes Saul will come down and then David asks the the ephod ifs all comes down in a Texas City will the men of Kyla turn me over to solve and the divining devices yes they will turn you over whereupon David flees Kyla with his men and as a result Saul does not come down and therefore the men of Kyla don't turn David over to Saul so what the ephod was giving David was not knowledge of the future Saul didn't come down they didn't turn him over it was giving him knowledge of these subjunctive conditionals if you were to remain in Kyla Saul would come down and if Saul were to come down the men of Kyla would deliver you over to him and knowing those truths then David flees the situation so that none of it comes to pass that's a great example in Scripture of this kind of divine knowledge of these subjunctive conditionals okay I have another question for you I've noticed that you've given it an answer that kind of contradicts would John Lennox says given if Jesus's bones were to be discovered and lawrence krauss asked John Lennox what it would take for him to disbelieve or not believe in Christianity and when I was responded with if they found Jesus's bones but I've heard you say in the video that based on the shifting sands of evidence and the self-authenticating experience that you would still believe but I feel like that's also the same case that a Muslim can make so how can Christians make their argument better than that of a Muslim to neediest Wow you really opened a huge can of worms here I told you the best questions are always doing that got the question that you posed is usually a gotcha question that's intended to embarrass rather than to ask a real point they want to get you to admit that you would still believe in the resurrection of Jesus even if they found the bones of Jesus and found as his remains and haha look at how irrational he is this is nothing but a got your question but the people who pose these gotcha questions are usually so inept that they miss state the question so that you can easily elude it and what you're thinking of is one such answer that I gave where they did not ask correctly if they found the bones of Jesus would you still believe in the resurrection instead they say something like if archaeologists were to find some bones and they thought that these were the bones of Jesus would you still believe in the resurrection I said yes I would sooner believe in the resurrection then that they had correctly identified the bones but of course if they were the bones of Jesus it would follow them that Jesus is not risen from the dead that that's trivial that's tautologies so that's absolutely correct the question would be would we ever be justified in thinking that we have discovered the bones of Jesus and I think that's highly highly improbable that one would ever be in such a situation now how does this make you any different than the Muslim of the Mormon who has mystical burning in the bosom or something of that sort I don't think that those folks are irrational in appealing to such experience I think that you are perfectly justified in accepting your religious experience as a properly basic belief unless and until you have some kind of a defeater for thinking that that experience is too Zuri and I think in the case of Mormonism and Islam there are such two feeders there are very good two feeders for thinking that Islam is not true and that Mormonism is a hoax but I don't think that there are comparable two feeders for Christianity and so I think that I am perfectly justified in believing in Christianity on the basis of the inner witness of the Holy Spirit in a properly basic way in the absence of any defeater of that experience and that is different from the case of the Muslim or the Mormon okay does Mike have anything to say about that bill said it I believe it that settles it I guess me too so thank you yeah no guys I just have two more questions on the view although they're they're real short one of them is you know if someone wants to be saved or if they are saved if they're being tormented or mentally tormented by perhaps their sins or something how do they trust in God or have faith in God that they've been forgiven or that they have been saved you know or taken care of or have faith others want to deal with that like a Christian per se like Christian if they're dealing with sin or you know if they become a Christian because of their sin how do they deal with trusting in God that they've been forgiven or that they are saved that makes any sense I'm not sure I'm understanding the full import of the question but if someone comes to God and trusts him it's part of what that entails is realizing I'm a sinner and Jesus died on the cross to pay for those sins as it says in first John 1:9 if I confess my sins he is faithful and just to forgive those sins and cleanse me from all unrighteousness so I think the very process of truly becoming a Christian is acknowledging the problem which is my sin in the solution which is Christ's sacrificial atonement on my behalf so I don't know what I'm missing in the question I guess how do they apply it like the believing of it if that makes sense like to live it out and not wallow in the sin or be held back well when someone read truly becomes a Christian I believe at that point the Holy Spirit indwells them and changes part of becoming a Christian is repenting which means turning away turning around saying I'm no longer want to go my way I want to go his way so I think the Holy Spirit enables that in us and I think the course of our life the general course of our life changes at that point but that doesn't mean it's perfect and we still fall and we still struggle at various points and I think we just go back and take that back to God in faith like we did at the beginning and say I'm still struggling with this are I blew it this is sin I acknowledge it and I thank you that again your a tone that covers it and that I'm forgiven through Christ thank you and I had one more short question okay so I know like how does it Christian deal with making decisions about you know having a wife you know or dating or find someone because I know that like people secular will say oh you know just stayed around and a Christian might say Oh God will provide you the one and some will say well dating your church or something like that it's I don't know how to if that makes sense how should someone view it or do it it's probably a longer answer I mean it's kind of the how do you find God's will question exactly which there's whole books on that I can recommend by Dallas Willard but why don't you come talk to me afterwards on that one and okay now sure and the young that'll be the last question the young lady and so that we've got about five to 10 more minutes at the very most so that'll be our last question you're doing what Bart said not to do right yeah that young lady's going to have a really tough question there the pressure pressure is all gone right go ahead I think we just cut off that lady and just now I know I know the young man in front of her and I'm sure that questions not going to be easy okay yeah you know Jesus whenever he was in front of Pilate he made the statement for this reason I was born and for this reason I came into the world to testify to the truth and the truth we've talked about it a lot here tonight it undergirds everything that we talk about and believe in and 2016 Oxford's word of the year was post truth and I see in our society that we're getting further and further away from truth and truth claims and really believing in just reality so as we go forward with apologetic arguments making reasoned arguments how is this going to affect attempting to make reasoned arguments with a culture that's becoming more and more shying away from truth claims and and actually reality itself the also you'll see that I mean I you you hear about it and it usually the stuff of truth it seems to me it works more or applies more to moral issues but I'll be honest when I lecture on college campuses and I do that quite often I talk on things like the resurrection of Jesus the historical reliability of the Gospels things like that and I just don't get those kinds of objections well we just can't know there is no such thing as truth that doesn't come up and it in fact I don't think it's ever come up from a student in those kinds of lectures but I suppose if I spoke on abortion or same-sex marriage it would probably come up quite often I think mike is absolutely right about this the idea that we live in a postmodern culture that doesn't care about objective truth is a myth invented by youth pastors and perpetrated articles about a conspiracy of you as Mike indicated what people are relativistic and pluralistic about is religion and ethics but they're not pluralistic in relativistic about technology and medicine and science but you see that's not post-modernism that's modernism that's old line verification ISM which says if you can't verify it by your five senses then it's just a matter of personal taste or emotional expression I think we live in a culture that remains at its heart deeply modernist and therefore it is imperative that we not lay aside our best arguments or best instruments and weapons of logic and argumentation in favor of just sharing our narrative or appealing to people's felt needs it is imperative if we're to commend Christianity and our culture that we presented and defend it as objectively true good thanks guys and I just kind of a basic apologetic principle that is almost cliche but I think it's worth putting out there and that is that even when people argue these things you know that it will argue that we live in a post truth culture and yes them is that true there you go and if they say it is true then they refuted themselves already it's just these are often self-defeating kinds of statements all truth is relative well is that it's relative if it's not and you know either way they lose so I think sometimes we need to point out the incoherence and what they're even trying to say and there's a good time for commercial for tomorrow morning at 9:00 you're going to be talking on understanding the secular landscape if I'm not mistaken yeah we really play into what you're think you're getting into as well yeah and I understand Bill's not going to be here so I'm going to tell some bill Craig stories oh all right yeah first want to say think of what you guys do a lot of your work has really helped shape my life and ministry and I'm very grateful for that one of my questions is kind of a bit of a follow-up to something I've heard in your class dr. Craig in Defenders as I'm sure you would agree that God is a maximally great being so it would be logically impossible forgot to sin given the Incarnation Christ could not have sinned and I've heard you use the the illustration that it would be like suppose a man on a diet who thinks as a chocolate cake in the fridge and still refuses to but little did he know the cake perhaps his wife took the cake to work or something so the cakes not in the fridge so he could not have even if you wanted to yet he's still refrained from my understanding of free will it is more appropriately a question of the ability to freely Willa thing and not just carry out the action to give a quick illustration that I like to use my arm if my arm were tied down to a chair although it were physically impossible to lift it up I could still freely will to lift it up so it wouldn't affect my will that being said what would you say in regards to Christ's ability or lack of ability to rest and not just it was not just that he couldn't sin but would you go as far as to say it was even logically impossible that he could even will to sin in the first place yes I think it's logically impossible for Christ to will to sin because he is divine He is God but he could still be really tempted in his human nature because he could feel the allure of temptation he could feel the allure of sin but then he had to resist that given the strength that he had and that God provided so I think the temptations of Jesus were real but in fact it's impossible that he could have succumbed to them okay button still freely resisted them as you say because nothing causally determined him to resist he resisted of his own power and will though he couldn't have willed otherwise he could not have willed otherwise but he's still freely will to resist them as your illustrations I don't know and and a perhaps a deeper philosophical question and knowing how to engage with atheist and knowing how to point out logical fallacies what is the appropriate way to argue with your spouse without having given in to that temptation of pointing out logical fallacies are at homonyms but really trying to communicate and I'm asking for a friend not for me we know nothing that true you know we haven't let let late in answering the questions yet I think he should answer that that hid way too close to home brother oh my wife said not two nights ago I can I'm debating a debater and I'm trying to argue that it really did that is the most practical thing when you when you are philosophically minded or theologically minded and a debater as the people in the stage and that sometimes that you you tend to treat the closest ones to you with that same kind of reaction and sometimes some what I'm learning with my own wife and I just say this is sometimes just shut up and let make sure she knows that she's heard that that's what most most people myself included all of us we want to know I am I being heard and sometimes being able to restate what somebody says even a debate it's the same way when you can restate the other person's position and they go yes you understand me that is so it's just I don't even care anymore if you disagree with me as long as you finally understand that's just wonderful I've heard and so much of my debates or my issues with marriage or anybody else in the debate world theology world is if I just stopped long enough to stop trying to debate them start trying to argue with them stop trying to win the argument and win the relationship by truly engaging with them as a person and letting them know they've truly been heard man it makes all the difference in the world and in both worlds that's what really does so all right I promise one last person gets the last question so thank you I just had to come up here because um when you started asking about the law it really sparked an interest and passion of mine and something I've explored very deeply in the Lord and I've been asking him why is it that Christians we don't honor the Sabbath day as a rest and why is it that the wall where to go okay so when I started looking at it you know in Ezekiel it says that when the Lord is talking to zekiel about the New Covenant he's saying that he writes the law in our hearts and that we have hearts of flesh and I see that as a chin commandment when Moses was given the Ten Commandments it was a heart of stone the Israelites could not honor the law because they had hearts of stone and so God gave us hearts of flesh through Jesus Christ living in it that's what it means to be spirit-led is that if we are led by the Spirit of God we will not sin against the law and I also have this concept of as the spiritual Jews like why is it that we don't honor the spiritual theses are God's peace he says it does regards peace he shows himself through the the Jewish people those are the roots of Christianity and of our faith like God showed his nature his character who he is to them so I don't know that there's so much a question as like a burning desire for people to explore it for themselves and ask God these questions as why because I think you'll be surprised by the answer so so let me just summarize the question to say why do we not still honor it for the most part many of the churches and Christians honor the Sabbath and even some of the feasts of the Old Testament right and your your argument about and Peter it says that Peter was hungry did God use that example because Peter was hungry and so it made sense for them for him to show food you know as like the Gentiles being cleaner and clean so that's something that's kind of up to debate I mean you can't just make a assumption about that well I'm that one I think it's clear that may or may have been hungry I don't remember that being mentioned but one way or another I don't think that negates what was said in fact he saw the vision I think I think says three times in a row to really make clear stop calling unclean what I have called clean and I think it I think it both was literal about I'm lifting these dietary laws that were part of did this distinctive identity of the Jewish nation but more than that I'm saying don't call people unclean that I'm calling loved by God but those foods if you look at the research for not good for your body like they're not your body doesn't receive them well still to this day yeah I don't think that's true there's nothing to matter with eating pork or Lobster all the bacon taken over here but I have so I think we need to celebrate I'm surprised that this has come up here frankly I think we need to celebrate the fact that we're under grace and not under law by more lon just saying there is nothing wrong with God's law he's perfect there's nothing wrong with God's will nothing your honor no but you know the Bible does say the law was our taskmaster Paul says in Galatians 2 kind of temporarily teach us like a schoolteacher until Christ should come but now we're not under the law anymore as you said but here under the New Covenant where Jeremiah says I will write their laws or I will write my laws on their heart and Jesus when he celebrated the last supper inaugurated that New Covenant he said this cup is the blood of is my blood of the Covenant which is shed for many so he thought of his death symbolized by the Passover Feast as being the inauguration of this new covenant that would take the external law away and internalize God's law in our heart so that the full requirements of the law are met by those who live a life right for Christ under grace but we don't need to keep feasts and Sabbath days and things of that sort anymore because we're under grace and remember that was the question that the Jerusalem church faced yeah in acts 15 all of these Gentile converts that were coming in unexpectedly do they have to become Jews in order to become Christians yeah they have to convert to Judaism in order to be Christian and they decided no we're not going to lay the yoke of the law on these people we couldn't bear it ourselves and we're not going to put it on them either they just set minimal requirements and then the this flood of you know Gentile converts has come in what Layton talked about in this seminar this afternoon while the hardening is temporarily come upon Israel this flood of Gentiles from around the world has come into the kingdom of God and eventually Israel will return and be saved but I think we need to celebrate what a marvelous change there's been in that we're not under law anymore well I don't see it as being under the law I mean I just said that I feel like if you are led by the Spirit of the Lord you're not going to sin against Allah and Jesus came as a heart intention of the tour he showed God's heart and law so I'm not saying that we're supposed to keep you know I guess it was more of a question like I don't think it's mutually exclusive that it the old Old Covenant can't exist like the law can't exist which Jesus he is the fulfillment of the law he came as the Torah you know the Word made flesh I think that's a good thing to close on in talking about apologetics and understanding of why we're doing what we're doing with evangelism and helping people to come to salvation to understand also that when we're talking about the law even like for example the law will Testament thou shalt not steal for example so are we trying to say that hey you know we're not under the law so we can all just go out and steal take whatever you want obviously not what the point is is that salvation doesn't come because you refrain from stealing salvation is not going to come because you refrain from eating the pork salvation is not going to come because you do all these dietary laws salvation not going to other words salvation is not going to come no matter no matter how good you think your works right but there are some points I think that's been brought up that there are some things that are that are wise for you to consider taking a day of rest for example throughout the week doing certain things that the Scriptures prescribe that are beneficial to you but distinguishing that from the way in which we're saved is that we're not saved through pursuing the law but through person in Christ and in pursuing Christ were trusting in his righteousness and that's why we're really here is to celebrate the righteousness of Christ and so you'll give a hand to our panel thank them for being here

Channel: ReasonableFaithOrg

Views: 29,535

Keywords: William Lane Craig, Mike Licona, Mark Mittelberg, Christianity, Apologetics, Theology, Philosophy, History, God, Jesus, Theism, Atheism

Id: UAZHRjGDdBU

Length: 89min 16sec (5356 seconds)

Published: Thu Jun 01 2017