tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post5710727921116953064..comments2023-08-05T21:48:58.831-04:00Comments on Philochristos: William Lane Craig against Calvinism: a response, Part 4 of 5Sam Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-10309768349135772802015-03-02T11:43:12.280-05:002015-03-02T11:43:12.280-05:00If the bible leads to different interpretations th...If the bible leads to different interpretations then the bible is not a reliable source or the interpretations are not reliable.<br />It is this ambiguity that cast Jesus as a God and saviour to some and a liar and lunatic to others. The latter view prevailed and he was tried, convicted and crucified.<br />So why are Christians till debating the former when the historical evidence of the crucifixion is acknowledged by biblical scholars.Harikrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12275048571912676216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-42458179592849353882015-03-01T13:11:10.531-05:002015-03-01T13:11:10.531-05:00Whatever complaints you have about the Bible are n...Whatever complaints you have about the Bible are not relevant to this series since both Calvinists (like myself) and Molinists (like Craig) agree on the consistency of the Bible and only differ on the interpretation of various passages.<br />Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-33474918845373851322015-03-01T02:44:07.808-05:002015-03-01T02:44:07.808-05:00I would have to say both views are biased becaus...I would have to say both views are biased because the errors, contradictions and controversies found in the bible by biblical scholars no longer support the divine authority of the bible.<br />There isn't much to debate if you accept the inerrancy of the bible as the inspired word of God and ignore the fact the bible is a collection of books written by many authors and copied by many scribes who made dubious changes to reflect the aspirations of the times and sometimes retroactively.<br />You can find me at debate.org.<br />Harikrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12275048571912676216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-9076291589105723992015-02-26T18:42:48.631-05:002015-02-26T18:42:48.631-05:00Harikrish,
Dr. Craig and I are both Christians wh...Harikrish,<br /><br />Dr. Craig and I are both Christians who both subscribe to the divine authority of the Bible, so there is no dispute between us about whether God is right in what the Bible records him doing. The only question is whether his view or my view best accounts for it.<br /><br />Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-43983584301014907242015-02-26T17:01:24.168-05:002015-02-26T17:01:24.168-05:00The problem with your examples from link.
"C...The problem with your examples from link.<br /><br />"Craig already raised this issue in part #3. He claimed there that if God determines our actions, then we are not responsible for them.<br /><br />Craig apparently thinks you can be an agent, or you can be an instrument, but you cannot be both. The prophets disagree.<br /><br />In Isaiah 10, it says that Assyria is the rod of God"s anger (v. 5) and that he sends it against a godless nation to capture booty, seize plunder, and trample them down (v. 6). So Assyria was God"s instrument, but does that mean Assyria was not an agent? No, because Isaiah goes on to say that although God sent Assyria to punish a godless nation, that was not Assyria"s intention. Rather, Assyria"s intention was to destroy and cut off many nations (v. 7). In spite of the fact that God sent Assyria to trample and plunder, he nevertheless treats them like moral agents. He goes on to say in verse 12 than when he is finished with all he sent Assyria to do, he is going to punish them.<br /><br />We see the same thing in Jeremiah about Babylon. God calls Nebuchadnezzar "my servant," and says he will bring him against Jerusalem and the surrounding nations and destroy them (Jeremiah 25:9). Then he says he will punish them (v.12). God sent the Babylonians to punish the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to destroy the Temple, but then he says he is going to arouse the spirit of the kings of the Medes to destroy Babylon for the sake of vengeance for the Temple (Jeremiah 51:7) and vengeance for the people of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 51:35-36).<br /><br />So both Assyria and Babylon are used as instruments of God to punish Israel and other nations, and God still treats them as agents by punishing them for what they did. So Craig has made a false dichotomy between being an instrument in the hands of God and being an agent, responsible for their actions."<br /><br />The reason the logic fails here is because you assume in your examples God is right. And like most Christian fundamentalists you accept the infallibility of God. So you are forced to justify God's use of humans as his instrument to kill and as agents of freewill punish them for what they did. God gets to have the cake and eat it too.<br />From a rational worldview that would be double standards. One rule for God and another for man.<br />Why William Lane Craig insists for objective morality to be possible we need God to exist is less logical from your examples. God in your view exists regardless of morality.Harikrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12275048571912676216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-69539463684739269002015-01-01T20:20:13.431-05:002015-01-01T20:20:13.431-05:00I don´t have a google account, so I will leave a c...I don´t have a google account, so I will leave a comment as anonymous. Thank you very much for your answers to Dr Craig´s critics. I found your explanations very didactic and clear and I hope you keep sharing your thoughts on this blog. God bless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-19420916760621867622014-02-25T06:43:52.787-05:002014-02-25T06:43:52.787-05:00But Peter did not preach that we should follow blo...But Peter did not preach that we should follow blogs.<br />Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.com