tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5204899610680495296..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Craig on the unreachedRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87242911645183006402018-06-15T00:27:51.796-04:002018-06-15T00:27:51.796-04:00Thats quite the bizarre thought. So there seems to...Thats quite the bizarre thought. So there seems to be at least two things, had I been the sort of person to reject the Gospel. <br /><br />One is that I could very much so have been created by God as a non-Indian person, perhaps someone back in 18th century Japan. <br /><br />The second is that not only would I be the sort of person to reject the Gospel, and hence be born in 18th century Japan, but so also would I be the sort of person who would embrace Buddhism, hence be born in Japan also.<br /><br />I say this because it seems to me that it is not enough to locate a person in place X at time Y on account of their rejection of the Gospel, but so also to locate them in X at Y on account of what they would positively embrace also. <br /><br />Which takes us to the following explanation for religious phenomena that I have seen bandied about on the web, viz. that if you were born in Iran, you would be a Muslim and if you were born in India, you would be a Hindu, South America, Catholic, etc. <br /><br />To which you presumably respond ala Craig "No. It is not because you were born in India, that you are a Hindu. No rather, God knew that you would be the sort of person who would reject the Gospel in favor of Hinduism, so He had you be born in as a brown person out in India. Had you been the sort of person who would have accepted the Gospel, he would have had you be born in Sweden instead and that too back in the 1700s."<br /><br />Strange stuff...<br /><br />~ Rajrgbraohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243742903460712693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64197895457066414272018-06-14T12:03:13.635-04:002018-06-14T12:03:13.635-04:00I don’t think Craig would be fazed by this. Or at ...I don’t think Craig would be fazed by this. Or at least that’s my guess. I think he would say something to the effect that your personal identity is rooted in your soul. Your soul can be transplanted to another body. So, if Steve Hays were the kind of fellow who would not respond to the gospel were he to be presented with the gospel, then Steve could have found himself in a pre-Columbian Indian body, never having the opportunity to respond to the gospel that he would never freely respond to in any circumstance anyway. Or something like that. So your ethnicity does not inhere in your soul, but as a matter of fact, you are a soul united to a Caucasian body.<br /><br />I don’t buy it, but I think that’s where he’d go. So I guess he’s not a traducianist.<br /><br />If you don’t mind me asking, Steve, how would you respond to that, assuming that Craig would respond with something similar?Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07547006817210841406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11896153614383268762018-06-13T15:19:46.940-04:002018-06-13T15:19:46.940-04:00Craig also believes that one can positively respon...Craig also believes that one can positively respond to general revelation and be saved (presumably on account of prevenient grace). Though, he thinks that man's depravity is such that very few (if any) people avail themselves of that way of salvation. Here's a video where he makes that statement:<br /><br />William Lane Craig How Will God Judge Someone Who Has Never Heard the Gospel?<br /><a href="https://youtu.be/cBmLTpem7tw" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/cBmLTpem7tw</a><br />or on facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/reasonablefaithorg/videos/10155629115978229/" rel="nofollow">https://www.facebook.com/reasonablefaithorg/videos/10155629115978229/</a>ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.com