Evidence for the Resurrection MP3 Audio by William Lane Craig

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Evidence for the Resurrection MP3 Audio by William Lane Craig

William Lane Craig presents this talk to high school students on The Evidence for the Resurrection. Video of the talk at RISE can be found here. Although this talk is a presentation of Craig's normal case for the resurrection, it is brief and concise. It is suitable for referring to a friend as Craig includes testimonial elements and a salvation message.

Full MP3 Audio here. (37 minutes)

Enjoy.

For Ap315's recommendation on the best Gospel sermon to refer to a friend, see this one here.

15 comments :

ann said...: Why do you popularize WLC's views when it is well known that the man is a molinist and follows philosophy rather than Bible?
Just wondering...; Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 8:10:00 AM GMT+1
Brian said...: ann_in_grace,

Thanks for your comment.

I popularize good resources in Christian apologetics. Whether or not this comes from someone with Calvinist, Arminian, or Molinist views is not the point, because I am not promoting any of those views.

Craig is both a theologian and a philosopher, and I have on many occasions featured the works of Calvinist philosopher/theologians as well.

If it seems that I feature WLC's content a lot, it is because I feel it is both of excellent quality and helpful in defending and understanding Christianity. None of it is pushing a particular theological view over another, nor is it pushing a pursuit of philosophy over the Bible.

I hope that helps to clarify my stance.; Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 9:24:00 AM GMT+1
Drew said...: Well, if you're a Calvinist, then you'll believe that Dr. Craig is wrong. But he was predestined to be wrong! And in fact, Brian was predestined to popularize Dr. Craig's views, regardless of human will or exertion! So why try to change our opinions?; Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 4:44:00 PM GMT+1
Roberto G said...: Each person is responsible for exercising their own discernment. Christians of all stripes can profit from WLC's debates and lectures.; Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 4:58:00 PM GMT+1
Chad said...: Roberto G,

Well said!

Godspeed; Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 8:11:00 PM GMT+1
ann said...: Brian: fair enough.
Drew: this is not a place or time to debate predestination. Your prejudice is too transparent :)
Roberto: yes; however, there are better sources out there. More biblical.

Blessings; Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 9:09:00 PM GMT+1
Roberto G said...: As a staunch Calvinist, I would also take issue with WLC's molinism and recent attacks on Reformed theology. But when it comes to the resurrection, he presents the Biblical evidence in a user friendly way. WLC definitely can't be accused of not doing his homework in his lectures and debates.; Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 9:20:00 PM GMT+1
bossmanham said...: ann,

I think you're subscribing to a false dilemma that Philosophy and the Bible are somehow at odds with each other. But most Christian theologians throughout history have also been the greatest philosophers of all time. Many think that philosophy is the handmaiden of theology.

I listen to WLC...a lot (his podcasts). He is a very devout inerrantist and always conforms his conclusions to the word of God. He uses philosophy to come to conclusions on things the Bible does not touch on, or does but does not elucidate on. Philosophy and Biblical Christianity are 100% compatible.; Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 2:39:00 AM GMT+1
Peter Grice said...: WLC is a little lower than the angels.; Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 3:02:00 AM GMT+1
ann said...: bossmanham: I am not. I enjoy listening to R.C. Sproul on philosophy ten times over WLC. Now R.C. is a devout inerranist and NOT a molinist. See the difference?
Blessings; Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 10:00:00 AM GMT+1
Unknown said...: "...the man is a molinist and follows philosophy rather than Bible?"

Honestly, I never really understood the strict distinction between philosophy and the Bible. To even make such a statement you need to use an argument independent of theology (and, therefore, the Bible). For even if the Bible were to say that philosophy, properly understood, were bad, it would be circular to use that as justification. On the contrary, in order to say that philosophy is unbiblical, you would rely on a philosophical (and/or historical) argument establishing that the Bible is the word of God, that God never lies, and therefore whatever the Bible says is true. Only then can you completely separate the two on Biblical grounds.; Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 3:10:00 PM GMT+1
bossmanham said...: ann,

So being a Molinist means you don't use the Bible? I've heard Craig defend Molinism with the Bible. Was that not your criticism?; Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 8:40:00 PM GMT+1
Unknown said...: A recent book by Kenneth Keathley also defends Molinism, with the Bible as a major focal point:

Keathley, K. (2010). Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach. B&H Academic.

http://www.amazon.com/Salvation-Sovereignty-Molinist-Kenneth-Keathley/dp/0805431985/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272571963&sr=1-1; Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 9:14:00 PM GMT+1
bossmanham said...: Keathley is a Calvinist as well, if I'm not mistaken.; Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 10:53:00 PM GMT+1
IssacharLogos said...: It's pretty weird to hear Amillenialists complaining about something not being Biblical...; Friday, April 30, 2010 at 6:08:00 PM GMT+1