tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4821727513125099854..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: What price William Lane Craig?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9804602591222055992010-09-11T18:10:34.611-04:002010-09-11T18:10:34.611-04:00I'd add a 3rd possibility to the mustard seed ...I'd add a 3rd possibility to the mustard seed thing.<br /><br />I have heard Wayne Grudem say that by 'seed' Jesus was not referring to <i>all</i> seeds but only to the common agricultural seeds that were used for growing food crops at that time. As such, the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds.<br /><br />It's like walking into a farmer's seed-store and asking 'Which is the smallest seed'? The question is predicated on the fact that only a subset of all types of seeds are in mind.Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25878842318539660952010-05-12T14:40:22.403-04:002010-05-12T14:40:22.403-04:00can anyone point me to good recources on innerranc...can anyone point me to good recources on innerrancy? I have heard some NT lectures by Dan Wallace and and folks like him on the Varioations in the manuscripts. I do belive Mr. Wallace is an innerrantist in light of this. I am just trying to understand what innerrancy actually means.<br /><br />Thanks so much,<br />ThomasTommy S. Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10053324573895616492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83022936256836669112008-01-20T15:39:00.000-05:002008-01-20T15:39:00.000-05:00I respect Craig very much, he has done battle with...I respect Craig very much, he has done battle with the very best and brghtest the enemy can throw at us and mostly Craig has defeated them soundly. I have read almost everything spoken or written by Craig, my take on his position,fwiw, is that he beleives the Bible is materially inerrant. There is no material error in it. That is my position also. Minor variations in ancient trip itinerarys,minor time,place,manner eyweitness focus variants, etc. do not change fundamental theological directives. <BR/><BR/> Quite frankly, I think these variants make the Bible more authentic as opposed to less so.Read lawyers's briefs with supporting affidavits in a multi million dollar case where Cravath,Swain partners are pyramid billing at about 400 dollars an hour and you will see a level of perfection unmatched in western civilization.Those witnesses look like they are the marine corp silent drill team-perfect, choreographed and in lockstep! And coached within an inch of ethical perfection!<BR/><BR/> And cutting to the chase, this supposedly "errant" Bible seems to have accomplished God's holy purpose.Moreover,It rules western civilization, and western civ currently rules the world. For such a supposedly flawed treatise, one wonders why the atheists are fixated on this book 24/7! Yes, the Bible is an anvil that has worn out many hammers. <BR/><BR/> (lol)We name our sons matthew, mark, luke and john and our dogs Caesar, Nero, and Titus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-17319542948868182322007-08-18T20:50:00.000-04:002007-08-18T20:50:00.000-04:00Yes, this is the danger of putting apologetics bef...Yes, this is the danger of putting apologetics before theology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74544210409806262972007-08-16T22:03:00.000-04:002007-08-16T22:03:00.000-04:00(From the quotes you gave,) noticably absent from ...(From the quotes you gave,) noticably absent from Craig's presentation is any reckoning with what it means to call documents "inspired". He's very clear about the nature of oral tradition, it's impact on the nature of scripture, etc., but not much thought on what it means to say the scriptures are divine.<BR/><BR/>I think your last comment hit the nail on the head:<BR/><BR/>"To some extent, Craig represents the triumph of apologetics over theology."<BR/><BR/>For Craig, appearing to have the best explanation at every point (trying to outreason the unbeliever at every turn) is the most important thing. This betrays a different basic presupposition from the one scripture urges upon us (of course, as I believe he is a wonderful servant of Christ, I believe this is an inconsistency of his).Andrew Fulfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03868073417200837332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21336981409700470232007-08-14T18:34:00.000-04:002007-08-14T18:34:00.000-04:00You've highlighted two examples of the problem I h...You've highlighted two examples of the problem I have with Craig and those who adopt his, what I term, "minimalist" apologetic strategy:<BR/><BR/>1. As a result, the doctrine of inerrancy looms abnormally large in his thinking. But the case for Jesus’ resurrection which I presented doesn’t in any way presuppose the inerrancy of the documents, so that the doctrine becomes irrelevant so far as belief in the resurrection goes.<BR/><BR/>2. If we Christians can’t find a good answer to the question before us and are, moreover, persuaded that such a command is inconsistent with God’s nature, then we’ll have to give up biblical inerrancy. But we shouldn’t let the unbeliever raising this question get away with thinking that it implies more than it does.<BR/><BR/>In other words, he's willing to adopt a strategy that he knows does not comport with reality in order to argue with the unbeliever. But how does this honor the truth of God's Word? In my estimation, it panders to the unbeliever.<BR/><BR/>Behind the second proposition is the subtle assumption that love is God's overriding attribute. His Arminianism is showing here. As a Calvinist, I don't argue that way. I will argue that, since the time of Christ, God has, in mercy for the sake of the elect He is calling, drawn nearer to the world than in the time beforehand, but I won't argue that something in any era, particularly the ANE era, is out of step with God's nature, for the Bible tells me that love is not His only attribute.<BR/><BR/>I'm reminded of a debate I attended earlier this year in which questions arose about free will. The Christian was a libertarian, so he couldn't, indeed, would not answer questions regarding the freedom of the will, because, I suspect, he knew that he could not sustain the argument. As I told one of the students who asked me my opinion on the debate, from my perspective, I could have and would have unapologeically answered the objection without appealing to libertarianism, since, for me, those objections were not at all a problem. Libertarianism does not, of course, comport with reality, and this same apologist was using Craig's minimalist approach, which, in my estimation lessened the force of his argumentation.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68232343531696973982007-08-14T16:20:00.000-04:002007-08-14T16:20:00.000-04:00I like Craig, but he's not without his share of un...I like Craig, but he's not without his share of unconventional views.Matheteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13527032591499860552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71959960341510241172007-08-14T15:26:00.000-04:002007-08-14T15:26:00.000-04:00I've been reading the posts over at the Parchment ...I've been reading the posts over at the Parchment and Pen blog on why inerrancy isn't important. It's irritating!!!<BR/><BR/>You guys at Triablogue are such a relief from all this other garbage.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.com