William Lane Craig, Evidentialism, & Inerrancy

William Lane Craig answers the question of whether there were guards at Christ’s tomb in an appalling (to any Bible believer) manner:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=b8UMb7NlxkU

TurretinFan’s rebuttal to Craig’s answer:

Rebuttal to Craig’s Denial of the Historicity of the Guard Account

It is disappointing, though unsurprising, to see that when one has abandoned a presuppositional commitment to the truth of Scripture, and to the God of the Bible, that one unavoidably falls further and further into the trap of editing the Gospel to make it more palatable to the ears of unbelievers.

We pray that Craig will turn from his sinful tampering with God’s holy word, and instead proclaim the very Gospel that God has revealed to us through his Son and by his word.


6 Comments

Mark

Do you have another video link? That one has been pulled.

Ben W.

I’ll have to look for one.

Greg (Tiribulus)

An unbeliever linked this to Bowman at Patton’s blog a couple days ago as ammo against “resurrection apologetics”.

JoshuaSonOfNun(Daniel)

At the risk of sounding like a WLC fan boy I think the comments made by Eliott Roland in the comments section in the link you posted makes a compelling point concerning one should consider context and check out what WLC has written and said on the topic instead of possibly misunderstanding him from a 2 minute clip.

Ben W.

I too read that comment, but, that response is the precise error that I believe WLC falls into, neither the Gospel, nor the word of God needs to be edited, changed, sliced into pieces or modified in some way to make it more palatable to the unbeliever. We’re Van Tillians here, and as Van Tillians we believe Christian Theism ought to be presented as a unit, as an entire opposing worldview, against the unbeliever’s world view, a world view that we argue does not reduce to absurdity, as is the case with the unbeliever’s, but instead because it is founded on divine revelation found in scripture, it escapes the vicious circularity that any non-Christian worldview must, by nature, accept.

So, to claim that one ought to leave parts of scripture “out of the program” when defending the Christian faith, is not really a defense of the faith at all. Rather, such a “bare theism” is a manipulation and corruption of the true Christian gospel.

Greg (Tiribulus)

My brother. (JoshuaSonOfNun Daniel) I never did a get a chance to reply yet man. Not intentional I assure you. This is pretty tough to misunderstand. I mean maybe if he released something clarifying his way outta the clear message here, but this is flat out denying the historicity of the a crystal clear passage of one of the gospels. You I know I love ya man, seriously, but this is damaging. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2013/03/14-evidences-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ-and-14-references/
Scroll to the bottom.

BTW. I subscribe to this blog and there it was again.


Leave a Comment