Introduction to Apologetics on Remnant Radio

[@midimusicforever]

Well done, Dr Craig!

[@wadetisthammer3612]

11:30 to 11:54 - The power of one good example to establish moral objectivism!

[@Karolylash]

❤Excelente

[@jasonbourne5142]

English

[@Masowe.]

i am only 24 and my husband is 26 but we barely speak to others so its fellow students or work colleagues etc we get to share the faith with. i also love making hot meals for my husband♥

[@achristian11]

Thanks 👍🏼

[@JesusisKyrios7]

When is Reasonable Faith 4th edition coming out? Or did he mean 3rd edition at the end of the video?

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

3rd edition. There are currently no plans for a 4th edition. - RF Admin

[@truincanada]

Dt. Craig. What and how do I logically explain original sin to my friend who doesnt buy it. That hes born with sin because of Adam.Therefore no need for redemption and no need for Our Lord Jrsus Christ.Thoights? Anyone?

[@jasonbourne5142]

By it* Also original sin is difficult to explain as not all Christian's teach it the same way.

[@GianlucaColatei]

Sorry I’m not WLC and I don’t have the answer - but if I had to guess: The idea was first brought up by St Augustine, but it wouldn’t be easy to extract apologetics from him as it’s theology. Perhaps you could try lectures on Augustine’s synthesis of the idea? And then use apologetical tactics to get it accross

[@ji8044]

Jesus never mentioned original sin and it's not a Jewish concept. That's why the baptism of Jesus by John was nothing like the baptism of Christians today.

[@GianlucaColatei]

@@ji8044 Just because Jesus didn't mention original sin that doesn't mean it isn't true. He spoke mostly in parables which contained within them wisdom and hidden theology to be expanded upon. Go read some of his parables - they don't have explicit instructions but truths can rather be extracted from them. For example Luke 16: 1-8. Upon first glance you may think what is Jesus talking about? I know that I didn't understand it at first, or at least only on a superficial level. But it is rich in theology which a lot of people (myself included) cannot comprehend it without instruction/explanation/interpretation. Then you have Paul who was the first who started to develop the theology, which continued throughout the centuries. Many of our Christian moral convictions were ((developed)) from Jesus, and not explicitly taught. But of course there is no doubting that he did teach directly very often and with perfect precision as well. God bless, sorry to disagree. It's all respect

[@ji8044]

@@GianlucaColatei "But it is rich in theology which a lot of people (myself included) cannot comprehend it without instruction/explanation/interpretation." Thank you for pointing out with Luke 16: 1-8 why there are many dozens if not hundred of sects of Christianity. Jews would have immediately understood. “And I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.” The literal translation of worldly wealth would be "wealth of unrighteousness”. So Jesus, a very righteous Jew, is telling his followers to use worldly assets and ways, like money, not just for accumulation purposes. Jews believe money should be distributed as part of the good works necessary to attain God's favorable judgement of their lives. (Salvation by Faith is a Pauline doctrine which would have been unknown to Jesus and his followers) Whenever you have a doubt about what Jesus means, look to Jewish history and theology for answers. Christian theology simply did not exist yet. I think your disagreeing with me was wonderful. Discussion is good.

[@BenStowell]

Time and time again Craig has been challenged on the moral argument, and yet he holds onto it. I wonder why? See Russ Shafer-Landau's book The Fundamentals of Ethics , 5th edition, chapter 5.

[@BenStowell]

btw, what happens when intellectual peace looks like giving up Christian belief? Or put another way, when Christian belief only results in intellectual anxiety?

[@ChristianTrinity411]

So not objective?

[@eliasarches2575]

There’s no slam dunk argument against his conception of the moral argument… there is just a preference for the abductive argument among many philosophers.

[@ChristianTrinity411]

Was all good until towards the end, Dr. Craig’s theory about how God might cause anyone that WOULD believe to live in a time and place where they would have opportunity to hear and respond to the Gospel seems wild and very ad hoc…like when would such a thing start, first century? Love Dr. Craig, but not sure how he said this with a straight face, would’ve been much better to just say we don’t know how God will deal with those who never hear the Gospel because Scripture does not address this question, but we can be confident that the judge of all the earth will do right…plus I wouldn’t use the secularists recently made up “word” homophobia, but that’s just my personal opinion…

[@extinctzebroid]

I suppose the idea is that everyone who has ever lived who would respond to the gospel, was put in a time and place where they can receive the revelation of God. So it has happened for all time. I haven't yet reached that part of the interview, but based on what I've heard before I don't think he strongly holds that view, rather he suggests it as a possible explanation.

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

@@extinctzebroid You are correct. Dr. Craig isn't insisting that this is *the* correct view. He's merely saying that if it's even possibly true, then there's no logical inconsistency between God's being all-loving and some people never hearing the gospel and going to hell. But, as a matter of fact, he favors a narrowly inclusivist view in which people who do not hear the gospel yet respond in faith to the light of revelation they have been given have the effects of Christ's atonement applied to them. - RF Admin