This method of "evidentialism" is not God honouring it is in reality making a mockery of God and his sovereign rule. The case that is often offered up is one of a variant presentation, the lay out is based around 3-6 points, such as the following :(a) a number of observable facts. (b) a final consideration of God or Christ.
In a more fuller manner it would be like this,
1. The existence of contingent beings. 2. The origin of the universe.3. The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.4. Objective moral values and duties in the world.5. The historical facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth.6. The Immediate Experience of God.
We must notice the kind of strategy that Craigs employ in his cases, "Does God Exist" or Is there any evidence for God." Is not a strict christian presentation since it has been adapted for an Islamic audience by Shabir Ally .The Christian must always start his case on the foundation that God does exist and that the bible is his true word communicated to us, it is our only foundation for truth.
The above chart are based five point; a number of which are secularist in nature relying on human philosophy for their foundation, the fifth one is the only time that we even here of Jesus Christ. Even if they concede that Jesus did rise from the dead, it would not lead to them becoming Christians, It may lead them to believe in a deistic kind of god but not the one true God of scripture. The formation of the presentation is not so glued together as one may think, to begin with none of the "philosophical" arguments; as stated in much of his points are biblically consistent arguments.
Firstly, these assumed point can only lead to a deistic god, or the possibility of there being "a" god, not to the biblical God. meaning that it is a leap to go from the greatest evidence of a possibility to the faith one needs in knowing for certain of the biblical God.
Second, the link between any number of these points and the final point is strangely missing and hard to establish. There is no establish connection between the first lines of evidence and the last one. Even if it was believed, it does not prove God exist, just strange thing happen.
Thirdly, the bible stresses that our apologetic must never put such focus on evidences, notice what Luke states, "He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." In despite of all the "evidences" one can off, it wont bring people to faith; if the greatest demonstrate may not lead them to faith.
Therefore, one must out right state that evidentialism is not God honouring nor does it show any respect for the truth of Christ. But this philosophical stance has take a further toll on Craig apologetical stance, in relation to his view of scriptures as a whole. Let us consider his words carefully.
Here is the opening statement to one of his articles;
"I propose to answer that question as a historian. I shall look at the New Testament and the Qur’an as the historian looks at any other sources for ancient history. I shall not treat them as inspired or holy books. Accordingly, I shall not require them to be inerrant or infallible in order to be valuable historical sources. By taking this historical approach, we prevent the discussion from degenerating into arguments over Bible difficulties or Qur’anic inconsistencies. The question is not whether the sources are inerrant but whether they allow us to discover who the historical Jesus really was."
The above comment was taken from an article called "who is the real Jesus : the Jesus of the bible or the Jesus of the quran." Which seeks to establish the historical Jesus by looking at the two text on a mere historical basis. It is argued on 4 steps of verification which are as follows, (1) multiple, independent attestation. (2) dissimilarity. (3) embarrassment. (4) rejection and execution of Christ. Such steps assumes a very foundational focus in the investigation : the truth of the matter.
What we need to note in the above statement is the following points being stressed. He states that he shall "treat the bible as an inerrant or infallible record." In stating this Dr Craig has revealed that he is working off of a probability stand point, in as far as the comparison is concerned. Beyond this, we must note that the Christian position is not that the new testament presents the best possible picture of Christ but in the end the quran could still be true.
And each evidence Dr Craig offers up to make his case for the biblical Jesus ; being the true historical person, it in fact, presupposes that the bible is Gods inerrant and infallible truth and not that history is giving us the best possible for what you desire.
Such passages as Mark 12 :1-9 and 12 :60 -64 which he quotes to establish his first point; "Jesus radical self conception." Based on his above statement we must inquire of him to answer these questions,
(1) How does he know that the terms "Son of Man" and "Son of God" are being faithfully written. ?
(2) Even if he can establish this, how does he know Jesus actually said these things?
To answer these questions Dr Craig has to abandon his unbiblical apologetic of evidentailism and presuppose That Gods word is true , that it is inerrant / infallible . in order that he can establish his case for these passages; in doing this, he has to really know his above statement of not viewing it as inerrant and infallible is false; for he is viewing as such to even make his case on such a position. the stand point he makes his case up is not what he is living out in his investigation.
Dr Craig's unbiblical philosophical stance has further infiltrated his beliefs in manner of how he responds to particular questions on biblical doctrines. Two examples of this web of falsehood comes through on the biblical doctrines of the trinity and incarnation, where makes the following comment.
Dr Craig "what analogies he may suggest for an illustration of the doctrine of the trinity." (Audience question)
Dr Craig's response : "Well I have one, it may seem controversial. But yeah I do have one, I lay this out in J P Moreland and my book : philosophical foundations for the Christian world view. There's a chapter on the trinity , I think a good analogy for it is the mythological dog that guards the gates of Hades ; in Greek mythology names Cerberus ... Cerberus was a three headed dog, now that is really interesting because what it means is Cerberus had three minds, we could invest these minds with self consciousness and self awareness. So that you have 3 canine persons yet Cerberus was 1 dog.So you have a very nice analogy here of 3 person in one being; which is the doctrine of the trinity."
Dr Craig, "what working model can you offer to explain the Incarnation" (the hypostatic union) (Muslims apologist Yusuf Ismail)
Dr Craig's response: "How many of you have seen the movie avatar; avatar is another word for incarnation. The Character (Jake Sulley) is a disabled marine; who became an avatar among a race of extraterrestrials. Jake is physically descaled yet he becomes physically incarnated as a navee at the same time he doesn't cease to be human."
These above responses are the most unbiblical answers a Christian can give as explanations for biblical doctrines and biblical truths as the bible attests too. As the bible states, "God is unlike anything in creation." (Isa. 40 :18, 25) In other words, If God can be explained in human terms or explanations then he is no God at all; in this manner we can know that all world religions which ascribe humans or animals or inanimate objects are in fact not in touch with the true God. And this is the uniqueness of the God of the bible.
Analogies or model are not based on Gods word all in the end break down; but what is more important in this is that this is the second example where he has used an "analogy" as attempt to explain a divinely revealed truth. First, we have him using the Greek myth of the 3 head beast (dog) that guard the pagan hell. And now, he is using another made belief ideal to explain the Incarnation; in this case it is is Cerberus the dog or avatar.
In both case; it is not that they break down that is the issue; as they certainly do. rather, it is the fact that he is using analogies in the first place. and at that they are blasphemous to the triune God and more specifically to our Lord Jesus.
The fact that Dr Craig had adapted his philosophical ideas into his "veil" of scriptures and the faith in general. In fact, the bible is clear that worldly or human reasoning (philosophy) is a dangerous thing for Christians to use in coming to faith, as it corrupts and mutilates the the purity of scriptural truth. Notice what the apostle Paul states, "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." In the last clause, we are told that human wisdom (philosophy) empties the cross of its power, meaning that the two avenues are such apposed to one another. The worldly and the godly ways are enemies of the highest degree.
.
Some important questions are to be considered here :
(1) On what level is these kind of analogies even connected to the truths of the trinity or the incarnation. There is no logical relationship between these analogies and the biblical truths.
(2) Even if there is a possible connection, Why should a practicing Christians result to using philosophical understanding to overthrow scriptural indications; of how one should live according to the biblical patterns which including our understanding of who God is ?
The point in this is Dr Craig has left the biblical world view in these examples above to use mythological depictions for two doctrines. The christian answer should be the following, We will not submit to should foolish questions. the one true God is unique in that the bible reveal his existence as One in Being and Three in persons and the Incarnation.
These truth are some of the most important to the true Christian and they should be defended in a biblical fashion which honors them in their full force.
Conclusion
In his attempted apologetic Dr Craig has inadvertently given his opponent the upper hand in the case even if he does not recognize this fact. The moment that a Christian abandons his world view, that of the biblical understanding of everything which is the truth. And dines in the back yard of the secularist understanding based on worldly philosophy and ideas. The Christian loses sight of his position.
And this is what Dr Craig has done he has compromised the biblical faith and the argument it produce for his worldly philosophical stance.
One should always consider the following passage and it significance to our apologetic as Christians,
but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil. (1 peter 3 :15 -17)
If our apologetic method is not biblically founded, is not Christ exalting, is not God glorifying then we must consider how we want to use our ministry in a more rewarding fashion. For it is important that we do not lose sight of what Christian apologetics are: evidentialism fails on so many different levels that it is to see how it can even be utilized in a Christian context.
The reality is this : there is only one apologetic that actually seeks to Honor Christ as Lord, and is biblically founded and that is Presuppositionalism.
