Steve Hays posted the following quote from WLC and a few Bible verses here. Alan Kurschner reposted those citations, with attribution at the bottom. This morning, Rich tells me a bunch of people have been complaining who 1) either missed the attribution at the bottom or 2) were claiming WLC was being taken out of context. Now I will allow Steve or Alan to respond to the second assertion, however, I wanted to point out that this is the exact point I criticized WLC on in one of his debates with Shabir Ally, so this is not the first time WLC has made this statement. I have said repeatedly that WLC's theology is way too hobbled to support biblical Christian theism, which is why he has to produce a much smaller theism to defend. And this is one of the manifestations of starting with philosophy and then crafting a theology to match your philosophical opinions. ---JRW
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4362
In response to the complainants:
1. Not only did I quote WLC verbatim, but I gave the link. Anyone can follow the link back to the full text and read WLC in context.
2. What does it mean to quote someone out of context?
i) Quotes are frequently and necessarily selective. They excerpt a statement from the surrounding context. When NT writers quote the OT, they excerpt a small part of what was said.
ii) To quote someone out of context is to quote him in a misleading way. To misrepresent what he said by restricting the cited material in a way that creates a misimpression of what he meant.
However, if you read the quotation in the larger context, it doesn’t change the force of what I quoted. It adds some information which may having a bearing on Craig’s personal beliefs, but it doesn’t affect the point he was making.
Here is what I quoted:
As for your two moral objections, the first is an objection to the doctrine of original sin. But once more, that doctrine is not universally affirmed by Christians and is not essential to the Christian faith. So don’t let that be a stumbling block for you.
And here is the surrounding context:
As for your two moral objections, the first is an objection to the doctrine of original sin. But once more, that doctrine is not universally affirmed by Christians and is not essential to the Christian faith. So don’t let that be a stumbling block for you.What is essential to Christian faith is that all men are sinners and in need of God’s forgiveness and redemption. I’m sure you’d recognize your own moral shortcomings and failures, Luke. So don’t get hung up on Adam’s sin. It’s your own sin you need to deal with. (As for the doctrine, its viability will depend on the viability of imputation. We often know of cases where one person is held responsible for the actions of another because the one person represents the other or serves as a proxy acting on the other’s behalf. Maybe Adam was our representative before God.)
i) In the excerpt I cited, Craig denies that original sin is essential to the Christian faith. Does that excerpt convey a false impression of his actual position? In the surrounding context, does Craig say something additional to indicate that, my quotation notwithstanding, he does, in fact, regard original sin as essential to the Christian faith? No.
He makes a gesture at defending original sin. But that doesn’t change his classification of original sin as a nonessential doctrine.
ii) The larger problem is his hubristic presumption. He takes upon himself the right to tell people what parts of the Bible they are obliged to believe, and what parts of the Bible they are free to disregard.
iii) If Craig himself didn’t think the Bible teaches original sin, then that would be different. That wouldn’t be telling someone that it’s okay to disbelieve Scripture. But the surrounding context indicates that Craig does, indeed, think Scripture teaches original sin (however he understands that teaching).
So even though, apparently, he thinks the Bible teaches original sin, he is telling a correspondent that you don’t have to believe what the Bible teaches about original sin.
When Craig does this he is literally playing God. Indeed, he is playing the role of a rival God. He is acting as if God lacks the wisdom or discretion to tell people what they need to believe.
So Craig comes along and says, “Sure, God may have said that, but you’re not bound to believe whatever God tells you. Leave it to me to clarify just how much or little of God’s word you’re obligated to believe.”
My quotation didn’t distort Craig’s point. And, in fact, the surrounding context makes his statement all the more damning.
He’s trying to usurp too much control over the conversion process, as if he has to protect people against God’s word. As if God’s word is toxic in large doses. And so he assumes the self-appointed role of giving people permission to disbelieve certain Biblical teachings which constitute a “stumbling block” to their conversion.
He makes a V-sign behind God’s head when God is speaking (the rabbit-ear gesture), and with a wink and a nod, assures the audience that it doesn’t have to take this or that divine statement too seriously.
When Craig does this he is literally playing God. Indeed, he is playing the role of a rival God. He is acting as if God lacks the wisdom or discretion to tell people what they need to believe.
ReplyDeleteSo Craig comes along and says, “Sure, God may have said that, but you’re not bound to believe whatever God tells you. Leave it to me to clarify just how much or little of God’s word you’re obligated to believe.”
WLC is engaging in the real oldest profession.
"Yea, hath God said?" - Gen 3:1
In Christ,
CD
You said, "If Craig himself didn’t think the Bible teaches original sin, then that would be different. That wouldn’t be telling someone that it’s okay to disbelieve Scripture. But the surrounding context indicates that Craig does, indeed, think Scripture teaches original sin (however he understands that teaching)."
ReplyDeleteBut he says, "As for the doctrine, its viability will depend on the viability of imputation. We often know of cases where one person is held responsible for the actions of another because the one person represents the other or serves as a proxy acting on the other’s behalf. Maybe Adam was our representative before God."
Here he shows that he's referring specifically to the idea that Adam's sin is imputed to all men. Apparently this is what his opponent is objecting to. But when he says tha this doctrine isn't shared by all Christians, I believe he's referring to the Eastern Orthodox. And they don't dispute the validity of the Scripture, but rather, the Augustinian interpretation.
So while you say that he's giving credence to the idea that one can disregard certain portions of Scripture, I think he's actually giving credence to Eastern Orthodoxy as legitimately Christian, even while disputing their interpretation of Scripture.
Although the Eastern Orthodox don't agree with the Latin/Protestant church on the forensic aspect of original sin, they also don't regard original sin as a nonessential of the faith.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that, for evangelistic/apologetic purposes, Craig doesn't seem to care what the Bible teaches about original sin. He simply absolves his correspondent of responsibility to believe what the Bible teaches on this subject, regardless.
ReplyDeleteJRW says it best: "What you win them with is what you win them to."
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that it was not effective apologetic by WLC, you are over stating and exaggerating what he said to fit your critique. It seems you are being dishonest.
ReplyDeleteAcknowledging that there is deferring opinion among Christians does not mean one is playing God. It's just bad apologetics.
Sure, but I think that when Craig uses the term "original sin" in the context of that quote, he's specifically referring to the Western understanding of that doctrine, because that's the doctrine his opponent is objecting to.
ReplyDeleteI understand, though, that even if I'm right, you'd still object to his apologetic approach. But it seems like a lesser objection than the the one you made--that Craig thinks that believing Scripture is optional for the Christian.
Yeah, I think Craig is merely saying that the issue of Original Sin (and which version is correct) is of secondary importance because some doctrines are clearer than others in Scripture, and Original Sin is one of those less clearly taught doctrines. My understanding is that Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Calvinists, Arminians (et al.) all disagree with each other about the finer points of Original Sin. And that against Pelagians.
ReplyDeleteFor myself, I strongly suspect there are some genuinely regenerate people (some whom I call Christians) who reject all (or at least don't hold to any) version of the doctrine of Original Sin. I don't know much about the folks at www.bible.ca, but they clearly reject Original Sin (not to mention Total Depravity). They (as a group) seem to be Pelagian in their rejection of Original Sin and (possibly) Semi-Pelagian with regard to God's necessary grace and our response to it. We obviously have to distinguish between groups and the individuals in those groups. Regarding the group/folks at bible.ca, must we say that they are non-Christian theologically (as a group) *and* necessarily unregenerate (individually if they accept its doctrines). How about non-Christian (as a group) but possibly (or likely) regenerate (individually in the majority of the case)? Can we Evangelicals say they are Christian (as a group) and likely regenerate (individually in the majority of the case)?
Here's the url to their criticisms of Calvinism http://www.bible.ca/calvinism.htm
I agree we should encourage people to believe in some version of Original Sin (preferrably the Calvinistic one), but I too don't think it should be a stumbling block for people to believe in the Christian God. Ideally people should accept the truth; only the truth; and the entire truth when they become Christians. Bu that's not how people usually become Christians. Many Christians gradually grow in their understanding of what historic Christianity believes is essential, as well as growing in their acceptance of those essentials based on the Biblical evidence for them.
I agree with Van Til that we shouldn't defend Christianity using a "Blockhouse Method" of *apologetics*; but I don't think that necessitates we require assent to the full orbed systematic essentials of Evangelical theology when it comes to *evangelism* and in accepting people as new converts. But, as always, I could be wrong. I'm open for correction. :-)
LEE SAID:
ReplyDelete"Acknowledging that there is deferring opinion among Christians does not mean one is playing God."
It's playing God when he discharges a questioner of responsibility to believe what God says.
Without Original Sin, there is no basis by which Christ's blood can be applied to any sinner whatsoever. Craig should know this. He has a responsibility to teach this. I don't care if ignorant, non-biblical "Christians" don't hold to it--Craig is held to a higher standard, and his outright ignoring of this doctrine instead of teaching it in a way that someone can understand it simply neuters Christianity.
ReplyDeleteYou don't defend Christianity by surrendering.
Ree said...
ReplyDelete"Sure, but I think that when Craig uses the term "original sin" in the context of that quote, he's specifically referring to the Western understanding of that doctrine, because that's the doctrine his opponent is objecting to."
He didn't tell the questioner that it's okay to suspend judgment a particular interpretation of original sin as long as you believe what the Bible generally teaches about original sin.
Rather, he indicated that if a certain position is a stumbling block, and if Christians differ on that position, then the questioner is free to disregard it entirely.
So he doesn't require us to believe whatever God requires us to believe.
Remember, he didn't say that original sin is nonessential because Scripture is so unclear on the issue that there's no core teaching to ascertain.
ANNOYED PINOY said...
ReplyDelete"I agree we should encourage people to believe in some version of Original Sin (preferrably the Calvinistic one), but I too don't think it should be a stumbling block for people to believe in the Christian God."
Since it was the questioner who broached the issue of original sin, Craig has the duty to tell the questioner that hes obliged to believe whatever the Bible teaches about original sin. That doesn't prejudge what the Bible teaches. That doesn't commit the questioner in advance to any particular interpretation.
But as a matter of principle, a potential convert must be prepared to believe whatever God says. That's hardly asking too much. In fact, that's quite minimal.
If you can't bring yourself to take God at his word (however interpreted), then what are you converting to? Is there any real conversion process?
Steve said...
ReplyDeleteSince it was the questioner who broached the issue of original sin, Craig has the duty to tell the questioner that hes obliged to believe whatever the Bible teaches about original sin.
and
But as a matter of principle, a potential convert must be prepared to believe whatever God says. That's hardly asking too much. In fact, that's quite minimal.
I agree and I think WLC would also. But before I make my case, let me just say what I suspect the problem is. Namely, 1. what WLC sees as being clearly taught in Scripture and (by extension) 2. what he sees as essential to the Christian faith is a much smaller field than what most Evangelicals would hold. WLC personally believes in Biblical Inerrancy and believes it is an important doctrine which, if proven false would weaken the *case* for the truth of Christianity (though would not render it necessarily false). For proof that these are his views, one need only listen to this podcast of his on the subject of inerrancy at minute 9. (http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/What_is_Inerrancy_.mp3)
On the other hand, when doing debates or when making a positive case for the truth of Christianity he doesn't try to defend it or even base his positive case on inerrancy. In fact, he's willing (arguendo) to concede that Scripture might be errant but that that possibility in no way jeopardizes the truth of Christianity. Since he believes Christianity's own truth doesn't hinge on the additional doctrine of inerrancy. As said in that podcast, inerrancy shouldn't be in the center of one's Christian web of beliefs.
Elsewhere I believe I've heard WLC say he believes and teaches that all ***Christians*** (keyword) are required to believe whatever Scripture does in fact teach. Though, I can't pinpoint an exact reference since it's assumed in all of what he has said.
And so, this leads me to conclude that he thinks Scripture just isn't clear enough to be dogmatic on the issue of Original Sin (or at least which version of Original Sin is true). That's how, it seems to me, he believes he can escape having to argue for and defend Original Sin or a version of it (which he may personally be persuaded of) when engaging in apologetics and evangelism.
However, he has said (cf. the 2nd podcast I'm about to mention on "Personal Questions"), that when speaking to a group of Christians, and as a Christian teacher he would discuss a range of options when it comes to a particular issue. Then at the end tell them what he personally believes (if any) and why. He has said (in essence) that he's actually displaying more epistemic humility in not being dogmatic on certain deeper issues (which he personally believes aren't essential). He says this in the first minute of the following podcast www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/Some_Personal_Questions_for_Dr_Craig.mp3. I HIGHLY recommend people listen to the first few minutes of that podcast as well as the one on Inerrancy which I gave the url to earlier (i.e. the first one) to understand Craig's differing approaches when dealing with non-Christians (who are outsiders) and Christians (who are insiders).
Both podcasts are VERY informative on Craig's rationale for his approach. For myself, I agree with much of what he says. Though, I'm always willing to be corrected. :-)
Finally, here's the main url to the Defenders and Reasonable Faith podcasts http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=podcasting_main
He has said (in essence) that he's actually displaying more epistemic humility in not being dogmatic on certain deeper issues (which he personally believes aren't essential).
ReplyDeleteOf course, that's only true if God considers it virtuous to be weak on your defense of the doctrines in question. What evidence is there that God favors lukewarm people, though?
As I think someone has said already, the problem with Craig is that he starts with philosophy and only then worries about theology. That's ass-backwards. I find it shocking and reprehensible that someone who's regarded by many as the world's foremost apologist believes that "inerrancy shouldn't be in the center of one's Christian web of beliefs."
The problem with your approach here Steve (and Bnonn and others) is that you start with your erroneous theological assumptions, you inability to read in context to then arrive at a dodgy conclusion.
ReplyDeleteYou need to first understand that there are three components to original sin:
1) Humans are prone to sin.
2) This proneness is the result of Adam’s fall.
3) The doctrine of “original guilt,” Adam’s descendants are guilty of Adam’s sin and can be held accountable for this sin.
Luke asked Craig a specific question on 3. Craig identified that what Luke was talking about came under the umbrella of the doctrine of original sin - he was correct, Luke was asking about 3).
Craig answered correctly that 3 is not an essential doctrine of Christianity.
Craig correctly stressed that 1 and 2 are.
Madeleine said:
ReplyDelete---
Craig answered correctly that 3 is not an essential doctrine of Christianity.
---
Except that's an *INCORRECT* answer. Without Federalism in effect, there is no answer to the question, "How can I be saved by what Christ did?" Paul *EXPLICITLY* states multiple times in Romans and 1 Corinthians that Adam is a typology of Christ, and that the reason all are dead in Adam is so that all can be made alive in Christ.
Craig has made it impossible for the person he's answering to ever be able to logically figure out imputation. Congratulations on your hero making evangelism more difficult for people who are actually engaged in theological discourse.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteMadeleine posted additional material on her and Matt's blog.
link
I think Craig made a great point, according with the Scriptures:
ReplyDeleteEveryone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 1 John 5:1.
In other words believe in the original sin, is not necessary for salvation.
I believed in the fallen nature of the humankind, and Craig seems to agree with this position, shared by almost all the christians.
Janus quoted:
ReplyDelete---
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.
---
Janus, how would you exclude Mormons from Christianity then? Do they not believe Jesus is the Christ? Do they not believe that Jesus was born of God? Do they not believe that everyone who loves the father loves the child?
See the problem when you don't concern yourself with what concepts MEAN, but only with whether certain words are used?
Peter Pike you are aware I am a Calvinist?
ReplyDeleteHow do you make sense of these passages?
“Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)
“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.” (Ezekiel 18:20)
I love the arrogance implicit in this parting shot: "Congratulations on your hero making evangelism more difficult for people who are actually engaged in theological discourse"
1. Bill Craig is my friend and brother in Christ, not my hero.
2. His words only made evangelism and the project of theological discourse more difficult for those who cannot read in context and who do not understand theology.
3. For someone with a biblical blog with Alexa rank of 10,519,380 to suggest he is "actually engaged in theological discourse" compared to someone with a biblical blog with an Alexa rank of 146,202 is kinda funny. We are all, Bill Craig, you and I working towards the same cause - tell me, are any of you familiar with Matthew 18:15-17?
Clearly WLC hasn't read these scriptures:
ReplyDeleteActs 2:37-38
"Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, 'Brothers, what shall we do?' And Peter said to them "Read Paul's letter to the Romans, every one of you, when it is written, and come to the one and only correct understanding of the doctrine of original sin, then repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Acts 16:30-31
"Then he brought them out and said, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' And they said, 'Study the doctrine of original sin and affirm it clearly, then believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved...'"
---
ReplyDelete“Craig answered correctly that 3 is not an essential doctrine of Christianity.
---
Except that's an *INCORRECT* answer. Without Federalism in effect, there is no answer to the question, "How can I be saved by what Christ did?" Paul *EXPLICITLY* states multiple times in Romans and 1 Corinthians that Adam is a typology of Christ, and that the reason all are dead in Adam is so that all can be made alive in Christ.”
There is an obvious non sequitur here, Madeleine’s 3 was a reference to the doctrine of original guilt, the claim that people today are guilty for the commission of Adams sin.
The passages you cite do not say this, what they say is (in your words) all are dead in Adam so that all can be made alive in Christ. This states that the consquences of Adams sin extend to his offspring but there is no explicit mention of original guilt at all.
There is explict discussion of wether God punishes people for covenant breaches commited by the ancestors centuries earlier in Ezekiel 18 but of course you don’t mention that because in that passage on the face of it God explicitly denies he does this.
The point is the scriptural picture is not as clear and cut and dry as you maintain.
"Craig has made it impossible for the person he's answering to ever be able to logically figure out imputation."
This is again a mischaracterisation, Craig merely stated original guilt is not universally held or essential for Christianity, he then went on to suggest a line of thought that might make sense of it. Claiming something is not essential not universally held, and then offering a line of thought to examine which might explain it, is not the same as making it impossible to understand.
Try some honesty.
“Real” Theological discourse involves reading in context, accurately portraying what people say, and not making unjustified leaps to justify character denigration.
If you think these tactics advance evangelism your tripping.
MADELEINE SAID:
ReplyDelete“Peter Pike you are aware I am a Calvinist?”
Actually, when you issue denials such as the following: “Like you, I do not hold to that understanding of original guilt…Craig was right to say that that understanding of original guilt is not an essential Christian doctrine (http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/12/william-lane-craig-original-sin-and-original-guilt.html#comment-137539),” it’s far from clear that you’re a Calvinist.
Where does Adam’s sin figure in your theology? Is that a case (indeed, paradigm-case) of original guilt, or not?
Moreover, all you claim for yourselves is that “Matthew and Madeleine Flannagan…are Evangelicals, with Reformed leanings.”
http://www.mandm.org.nz/about/
“How do you make sense of these passages?”
Much the same way Daniel Block and Iain Duguid understand them.
“His words only made evangelism and the project of theological discourse more difficult for those who cannot read in context and who do not understand theology.”
That’s a very prideful comment on your part, and one not borne out by the facts.
“We are all, Bill Craig, you and I working towards the same cause - tell me, are any of you familiar with Matthew 18:15-17?”
Gee, looks like you bypassed the Mt 18:15-17 process when you posted your censorious comments about Peter.
MATT SAID:
“There is an obvious non sequitur here, Madeleine’s 3 was a reference to the doctrine of original guilt, the claim that people today are guilty for the commission of Adams sin. The passages you cite do not say this, what they say is (in your words) all are dead in Adam so that all can be made alive in Christ. This states that the consquences of Adams sin extend to his offspring but there is no explicit mention of original guilt at all.”
You might try to limit the force of 1 Cor 15 to mere mortality or “consequences,” but it doesn’t wash for Rom 5. And, of course, “explicit” is a weasel word.
And even where 1 Cor 15 is concerned, you can’t abstract death in that passage from the punitive dimensions of death in OT theology or Pauline theology. That’s a presupposition of Paul’s discussion in 1 Cor 15.
“There is explict discussion of wether God punishes people for covenant breaches commited by the ancestors centuries earlier in Ezekiel 18 but of course you don’t mention that because in that passage on the face of it God explicitly denies he does this.”
You trot out the stock Arminian prooftext, as if that hadn’t been dealt with before. In any case, whether or not it’s generally true that individuals can be culpable for the sins of their forbears can’t negate the express witness of Scripture concerning the special case of Adam’s relation to his posterity.
“Try some honesty. ‘Real’ Theological discourse involves reading in context, accurately portraying what people say, and not making unjustified leaps to justify character denigration.”
Virtues sorely lacking in the way you mishandle Craig’s critics.
3. For someone with a biblical blog with Alexa rank of 10,519,380 to suggest he is "actually engaged in theological discourse" compared to someone with a biblical blog with an Alexa rank of 146,202 is kinda funny.
ReplyDeleteYes, we know how important Alexa ranking is to you, Maddy. When Christ returns to judge the living and the dead, he'll print out the Alexa database and work his way down from the top. It'll be a terribly long time before he gets to Triablogue, and thus everyone will see how inconsequential they are in the Kingdom.