William Lane Craig showing his Protestant Bonafides

2,321 Views | 46 Replies | Last: 13 days ago by FTACo88-FDT24dad
Vox Clamantis
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And using his own authority to deny the eternal nature of Christ's divinity. Nicaea 0 WLC 1



My favorite part is he notes the established ecclesiastical tradition but says his own views feel "more faithful to the New Testament"

Protestants make their interpretation of the scripture into their own deity
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Heretic
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I am confused as to what exactly he is saying. John is very straight forward about this.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

I am confused as to what exactly he is saying. John is very straight forward about this.

I'm confused too but doing some research I think his view is that God is not really Father, Son, Holy Spirit but takes on those roles arbitrarily and freely just as it relates to human salvation.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Serotonin said:

dermdoc said:

I am confused as to what exactly he is saying. John is very straight forward about this.

I'm confused too but doing some research I think his view is that God is not really Father, Son, Holy Spirit but takes on those roles arbitrarily and freely just as it relates to human salvation.

I disagree with him then.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And interestingly this was in my readings this morning.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So I guess he affirms the Son has always been God, equal with the Father, and eternally existent. But does not affirm that this eternal existence involves the Father eternally generating/begetting the Son in the divine nature.

I honestly have no idea how we would know one way or the other. That stuff messes my brain up trying to think about it. I'll just stick with the creed.



dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frok said:

So I guess he affirms the Son has always been God, equal with the Father, and eternally existent. But does not affirm that this eternal existence involves the Father eternally generating/begetting the Son in the divine nature.

I honestly have no idea how we would know one way or the other. That stuff messes my brain up trying to think about it. I'll just stick with the creed.





That makes sense.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

Frok said:

So I guess he affirms the Son has always been God, equal with the Father, and eternally existent. But does not affirm that this eternal existence involves the Father eternally generating/begetting the Son in the divine nature.

I honestly have no idea how we would know one way or the other. That stuff messes my brain up trying to think about it. I'll just stick with the creed.





That makes sense.


I shared this previously but it seems appropriate to recall the circumstances of Nicaea and the lesson of how precarious the Church's existence has been at times in history and how things we take for granted today were not necessarily obvious or easy to discern.

We owe a debt to St. Athanasius who stood athwart the tide and defended what we presume as orthodoxy today but was very nearly lost forever.

All of this occurred WITHIN the structure and governance of the Ekklesia that Jesus established and promised to preserve. The Arian threat to the Gospel and the Ekklesia was defeated within the structure and governance of the Ekklesia. Instead of unraveling, it pulled together.

Let's look at just how existential Arianism was to the Gospel and the Ekklesia.

The Arian heresy stands as perhaps the greatest internal crisis the Church has ever faced, a battle not merely over governance or discipline, but over the very identity of Jesus Christ.

Arianism, named for the Catholic priest who was most closely associated with its ideas, affirmed a created, finite nature of Christ rather than equal divinity with God the Father. This error strikes at the very heart of salvation itself, for if Christ is not truly God, His sacrifice cannot redeem; if He is not truly man, there is no one to be redeemed through Him.

The Arian heresy was an existential threat to the faith of Christendom, spreading so widely in the eastern parts of the Empire that it endangered civil as well as religious peace.

Constantine, witnessing the extent to which the Arian controversy was troubling and endangering the unity of the Church, felt compelled to intervene in religious affairs and so in 325 he called for a council of the Church in the city of Nicaea, where bishops from throughout the Empire would assemble to settle the issue.

It is important to appreciate that the controversy was not merely a theological skirmish among ivory-tower scholars. It was ripping entire communities, dioceses, and regions apart.

There were twenty Arian sympathizers among the more than 300 bishops present at the Council of Nicaea. The champion of orthodoxy was St. Athanasius of Alexandria, only a young deacon at the time, who stood nearly alone against the Arian tide.

To combat the Arian heresy, the Council formulated the Nicene Creed, which was required of all Christians to learn and memorize, to be recited at all Eucharistic services in perpetuity. It seemed like a decisive victory. It was not.

The formal condemnation at Nicaea did not extinguish Arianism. It detonated it.

Even though the Council of Nicaea strictly defined Christianity as a Trinitarian religion, the Arian heresy continued to grow and spread for decades. Having been defeated in the hierarchy of the Church, the Arians turned to civil politics as a means of gaining power over ancient Christianity.

After two years, Arius declared he had repented. He and the bishops excommunicated with him returned to the Church and then secretly expanded their influence, teaching their doctrine, and retaliating against opponents.

The political dimension cannot be overstated. Because of the influence of the Arian bishop Eusebius upon Constantine the heresy became so well established in the see of Constantinople that for fifty years, from the death of Constantine until the reign of Theodosius the Great, every bishop of Constantinople was Arian.

When a series of pro-Arian emperors arrived on the scene, Arianism spread like wildfire. After the murder of Constantius's brother Constans in 350, the empire was consolidated under the rule of Constantius and it appeared that the entire Christian world had fallen into Arian hands.

St. Jerome's famous cry from the period captures the devastation: "The whole world groaned, and marveled at finding itself Arian!" St. Athanasius was in exile off and on for thirty-one years.

Five times exiled by Arian emperors, yet never recanting, never compromising. History gave him the title Athanasius contra mundum (Athanasius against the world).

Upon his return to Alexandria from his last exile in 365, St. Athanasius received such popular acclaim that the Arian Emperor Valens, now ruling the Empire, feared an uprising should he banish him again. For the remaining eight years of his life, he was allowed to perform quietly the duties of his office. His witness is a profound lesson: one man, grounded in truth, can outlast an empire's error.

Even as Arianism was being beaten back in the Roman Empire, it was spreading outward into the Germanic tribes. Some emperors favored the Arians for political reasons; others, faithful to the Church, opposed them, but even in exile the Arians continued to spread their heresy, and many of the barbarian tribes became converts to Arian Christianity.

The followers of Arianism spread Arian Christianity among the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths. This meant that as the Roman Empire collapsed and Germanic kingdoms rose across Europe, Arian kings ruled over Catholic populations, creating centuries of tension, persecution, and missionary effort.

The definitive imperial end of Arianism came with Emperor Theodosius, whose Edict of Thessalonica in 380 declared Nicene Christianity the official religion of the Empire. Arianism continued to be a recurring problem in the ancient Church for the following two centuries. It was not fully extinguished in the West until the conversion of the Visigoth king Reccared to Catholicism in 589, although it exists to this day in traditions like the Jehova's Witnesses and Unitarians. Mormons are also arguably Arians on steroids. And there is the secular form of Arianism that touts Jesus as a great teacher but not the divine, eternally begotten second person of the Trinity.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frok said:

So I guess he affirms the Son has always been God, equal with the Father, and eternally existent. But does not affirm that this eternal existence involves the Father eternally generating/begetting the Son in the divine nature.

I honestly have no idea how we would know one way or the other. That stuff messes my brain up trying to think about it. I'll just stick with the creed.

I think it goes one step beyond that to say that these are just roles that the three persons of God is performing in relation to human salvation. I believe he's even stated that if humanity was never created then there would still be a triune God but no Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Serotonin said:

Frok said:

So I guess he affirms the Son has always been God, equal with the Father, and eternally existent. But does not affirm that this eternal existence involves the Father eternally generating/begetting the Son in the divine nature.

I honestly have no idea how we would know one way or the other. That stuff messes my brain up trying to think about it. I'll just stick with the creed.

I think it goes one step beyond that to say that these are just roles that the three persons of God is performing in relation to human salvation. I believe he's even stated that if humanity was never created then there would still be a triune God but no Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


Modalism (also called Sabellianism, after the third-century teacher Sabellius, or Modalistic Monarchianism) claims there is only one divine Person who successively reveals Himself under three different names or roles. In this view, the Father becomes the Son at the Incarnation, and the Son becomes the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. There are no eternal, simultaneous, distinct relations within God just one actor wearing different masks depending on the scene.
fat girlfriend
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He affirms the Apostle's Creed, but that ain't enough to make him a Christian according to some of the sectarians out there!
fat girlfriend
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I just watched the full clip. He admits to not being to affirm that particularity of trinitarian doctrine, but neither does he deny it. He's agnostic about it.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yes, it was not the big deal the headline and OP made it out to be IMO.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frok said:

Yes, it was not the big deal the headline and OP made it out to be IMO.

Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Do you think he's damned for that statement?

I know the "always on the internet" Christians will freak out.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frok said:

Do you think he's damned for that statement?

I know the "always on the internet" Christians will freak out.

He's denying part of the Nicene Creed. Is that a "big deal" or not?
fat girlfriend
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Serotonin said:

Frok said:

Do you think he's damned for that statement?

I know the "always on the internet" Christians will freak out.

He's denying part of the Nicene Creed. Is that a "big deal" or not?

First, why didn't you answer his question?

Second, he did not deny part of the Nicene Creed; he merely failed to affirm it.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fat girlfriend said:

Serotonin said:

Frok said:

Do you think he's damned for that statement?

I know the "always on the internet" Christians will freak out.

He's denying part of the Nicene Creed. Is that a "big deal" or not?

First, why didn't you answer his question?

Second, he did not deny part of the Nicene Creed; he merely failed to affirm it.


He said "it was not the big deal the headline and OP made it out to be IMO." and I responded "you sure about that"?

Regarding Craig, he denies the Nicene Creed's affirmation that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father.

He argues in the clip that it isn't supported by scripture and creates (in his view) subordination within the Trinity.

I realize that he later says he's agnostic on the topic, but he spends his entire time taking up one position so I think we can assume that's his true position and he's not really agnostic on the topic.
fat girlfriend
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He asked you if you thought Craig was damned for his statement, and you ignored his question.

Quote:

Regarding Craig, he denies the Nicene Creed's affirmation that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father.

That's factually and objectively inaccurate, though I give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just failing to see the distinction. He does not deny it, but he can't honestly affirm it, and he gives his reasons why.

Allow me to be blunt and say I think his reasons for doubting the Christology affirmed by the Nicene Creed are over your head.

(I hope you don't take the last bit as an insult; I suspect they are over my head as well, and I have training in the field - but I've never really studied Christology deeply.).
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Check with Google or ChatGPT, WLC has a developed view on this. I can send some links on a computer on Monday with quotes.

And I will fully admit that he is far smarter than I am. As was Arius, as is Sam Harris, as are all the atheist and secular scholars who study the Bible and reject the trinity or God altogether.

And this gets to the underlying point of the thread which is that 'high IQ' + 'scripture read in isolation' = all sorts of differing theological viewpoints.

The safeguard against heresy is not "the smartest studiers who read the Bible the smartest and the bestest", but careful study of scripture + the wisdom and knowledge passed down within the apostolic tradition of the Church.
fat girlfriend
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So do you think's he's damned because of his Christological views?
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fat girlfriend said:

So do you think's he's damned because of his Christological views?

No, why do you jump to that conclusion?
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The original Greek text of the Nicene Creed begins with (Pisteuomen), meaning "We believe" reflecting its origin as a communal, conciliar statement of faith professed by the bishops gathered at Nicaea. (The Latin later shifted this to Credo, "I believe," for individual liturgical recitation.)

Failure to actually believe any portion of the Nicene Creed as an article of true Christian faith would place one in the same category as a Jehovah Witness, imho. So one cannot be agnostic about any aspect of the creed and still be able to claim to be Christian as far as I am concerned. It is a litmus test for authentic Christian status. A failure to actually believe in any part of it would seem to place one outside orthodox Christianity.

" For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end."

What part of the foregoing section of the Creed is it OK to be agnostic about and still be a Christian? If I were to say that I am agnostic about the resurrection as set forth in the Creed, am I still Christian?

I will concede that most of that section of the Creed can be supported fairly clearly in Scripture, or at least more easily than some of the more nuanced aspects of the Trinity.
fat girlfriend
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Serotonin said:

fat girlfriend said:

So do you think's he's damned because of his Christological views?

No, why do you jump to that conclusion?


You seemed to think it was a really really bad thing. I wanted to know how bad.

So you disagree with the writers of the Nicene Creed that anyone who fails to affirm the creed can't be considered Christian? Why don't you trust their historical authority?
fat girlfriend
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

So one cannot be agnostic about any aspect of the creed and still be able to claim to be Christian as far as I am concerned.


That seems nuts to me. I don't mean that rudely. It really does.

Imagine some sweet, lifelong, humble follower of Christ, maybe a poor farmer's wife who has never even considered particular Trinitarian doctrine who nonetheless is agnostic about some fine point, and you're doubting her Christianity.

Just so silly.

FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fat girlfriend said:

Quote:

So one cannot be agnostic about any aspect of the creed and still be able to claim to be Christian as far as I am concerned.


That seems nuts to me. I don't mean that rudely. It really does.

Imagine some sweet, lifelong, humble follower of Christ, maybe a poor farmer's wife who has never even considered particular Trinitarian doctrine who nonetheless is agnostic about some fine point, and you're doubting her Christianity.

Just so silly.




Silly?

One can be a Christian without ever reciting the Nicene Creed by name, but one cannot be an orthodox Christian while denying what it teaches because the Creed simply says in careful words what the Church has always believed about Jesus Christ.

Moreover, I don't think one can be agnostic about something in the Creed or any statement of belief without having actually considered it. So if the person in your example has never considered it or heard of it I don't believe she could be agnostic about it. If she's never actually considered it her view of it would be so limited as to prevent real agnosticism and if she never heard of it she would most likely be invincibly ignorant and not morally accountable for not believing it.

There's absolutely no way WLC is invincibly ignorant in this case. His agnosticism about such an important aspect of the Creed places him outside orthodoxy. Given what you and I know about the resurrection, if we were to be agnostic about it I think we would be as well. It would be silly to think otherwise.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fat girlfriend said:

Serotonin said:

fat girlfriend said:

So do you think's he's damned because of his Christological views?

No, why do you jump to that conclusion?


You seemed to think it was a really really bad thing. I wanted to know how bad.

So you disagree with the writers of the Nicene Creed that anyone who fails to affirm the creed can't be considered Christian? Why don't you trust their historical authority?

My brother, I'm sorry but I can only respond to one non sequitur question in this thread per day.

If you want to discuss his assertion (rather than your (incorrect) assumptions about what I think the implications of his assertion are), then happy to resume tomorrow.
fat girlfriend
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Putting belief in the eternal generation of the son as theologically central as belief in the resurrection of Christ!

Just nuts.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fat girlfriend said:

Putting belief in the eternal generation of the son as theologically central as belief in the resurrection of Christ!

Just nuts.



I don't know why I let myself get drawn into this. It's not worth it.

Out.
fat girlfriend
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

fat girlfriend said:

Putting belief in the eternal generation of the son as theologically central as belief in the resurrection of Christ!

Just nuts.


What's nuts is how you fail to understand why they are equally important.


I sure do fail to understand that.

Imagine Paul writing, "we preach Christ, and him crucified, and him being eternally generated from the first person of the Trinity."
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dp
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fat girlfriend said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

fat girlfriend said:

Putting belief in the eternal generation of the son as theologically central as belief in the resurrection of Christ!

Just nuts.


What's nuts is how you fail to understand why they are equally important.


I sure do fail to understand that.

Imagine Paul writing, "we preach Christ, and him crucified, and him being eternally generated from the first person of the Trinity."

St Paul also never told us what the New Testament canon was. He didn't give us a list of inspired books, use the word 'Trinity,' or formulate 'one essence in three persons." Do you believe in any of those things? If so, why? Where did St Paul phrase those explicitly for you?
fat girlfriend
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I do believe in all those things, and I even think they're super important, but I'm not sectarian enough to tell people who follow Christ that they ain't real Christians if they disagree with one particular articulation of trinitarian doctrine.

This whole thread is a useless "got him!" thread that is itself not in the spirit of Christ.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fat girlfriend said:

I do believe in all those things, and I even think they're super important, but I'm not sectarian enough to tell people who follow Christ that they ain't real Christians if they disagree with one particular articulation of trinitarian doctrine.

Yeah but everyone draws the line somewhere. Are Unitarians Christian? A liberal Christian who "isn't sure Christ was divine"? Mormons? Etc

But that also doesn't necessarily lead to "they are damned for eternity because they believe the wrong thing about God".
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.