Transcript

Well, here's my concern.

It seems to me that Catholic theology is in the straitjacket of the Council of Trent.

I want to share today two pieces of advice-

Sure.

for Roman Catholics.

Dr. William Lane Craig, welcome to the Council of Trent podcast.

Good to be with you, Trent.

I am just- I'm just really jazzed to be here- sitting down with you.

I'm not even sure how to, how to start.

I'm just like I don't know, I'm just kind of a little bit, like, starstruck, or people would say, uh, fanboying, if you will, because I've followed your work for such a long time, and it was just really instrumental in my own conversion to Christ.

Really?

Uh, and in becoming an apologist, being a debater.

So yeah, I just wanna A few different things to chat about.

Um, one, I wanna talk about There's a little bit of similarity, uh, kind of in our spiritual and vocational journeys.

So- so on my end for you to know, uh, my religious journey began I was raised in kind of a non-religious household.

Um, I didn't go to church.

Uh, I You know, my parents would read Bible stories to me, but when I was in junior high, I asked, you know, How do I know these Bible stories are true?

Right.

Was this a nominally Catholic home?

This is interesting.

So my mother was Catholic, but left the Catholic Church, and she became kind of a nominal Protestant.

Oh.

And my dad is Jewish, but he didn't go to temple.

So we didn't- we didn't go I was raised just kind of nothing, just some Bible stories here and there.

Eventually, I became a- a deist in high school.

Like, I believed there was a God out there who kind of started everything, but I thought religion was, you know, just for un- I- I loved science.

Like, I was in the Young Astronomers Club.

I thought that religion-

Yes.

was for unintelligent people.

Then when I was in high school, I met some Catholic friends, and they took me to a youth group, introduced me to the faith, and I- and I thought, Okay, well, how do I know that this is true?

And so that would have been around in 2001.

And so I went online, and I started watching debates between Christians and atheists.

And yours were at the- the top of the list.

Wow.

And that- that's what And just- just seeing how someone like yourself could understand the scholarship, science, and philosophy, and really take atheists to task.

I mean, it had It ha- it just sent me down the rabbit hole of then starting with debates and then reading the essays back and forth on each side.

I remember.

This was I went to- I went to the secular web, infidels.org, Jeffrey J. Louder's-

Right, right.

website.

So- so this is early.

For me, this is 2001.

This is before YouTube, before, uh There was really I mean, there were some websites that were out there, but not a lot.

Like, in order to It took forever just to download one of your debates.

So I remember, I wa- the- the- there was the, um, the Atkins debate.

Uh, I loved your debate with Keith Parsons-

Oh, yes.

in 1998.

So seeing So- so some of your debates Tell me about how you got 'Cause you- you began your work, you- you were an academic, you're studying at University of Birmingham, Munich, you're a teacher, but then you really made a contribution to the kingdom taking your being a philosophy and theology professor, going out and doing these debates.

How- how did that kind of start?

My debate training began before I even became a Christian.

Hmm.

When I, uh, went to high school, my older sister said to me, All you want to do is argue.

You should debate, uh, join the debate club.

Yeah.

And I said, Well, what's that?

And she says, Oh, it's this club at school where all they do is argue with each other.

And I thought, Well, that sounds really interesting.

So I went out for the debate team, and for four years, I competed in high school, uh, debate tournaments all around the state of Illinois.

Okay.

And when I graduated and went to Wheaton College, I joined the Wheaton debate team-

Okay.

and we debated all over the country on the university circuit.

Well, when I graduated from Wheaton, I thought my debating days were over.

Uh, I- I would never do it again.

Yeah.

And then after I finished my graduate work that you mentioned, uh, in philosophy and theology, I started getting invitations from Canadian university campus groups-

Okay.

to debate prominent atheists or humanists-

Yeah.

on subjects pertinent to the Christian faith.

Now, in high school and college, our debates were always on political or economic-

Right.

questions, policy questions.

But what I discovered was that if I were to have a debate on a university campus where there's a level playing field, both sides are given the opportunity to present their best case, that thousands of students would come out-

Yeah.

to such a debate.

And I thought, This is really the forum for evangelization.

As opposed if you just went to the school and William Lane Craig-

Yeah.

is giving a talk on God's existence.

Then we'd get a few score-

Yeah.

to- who would come to hear my talk, and probably mainly Christians.

Right.

But you have a debate on the existence of God, and thousands will come-

Yeah.

many of whom are non-believers, and this gave me the opportunity to present or- a- a- an intellectual defense-

Yeah.

of the- the gospel to these non-Christian students, which I- I was burdened to do.

Yeah.

So I've noticed this myself when I'll do, uh, episodes for a podcast or YouTube.

Like, if I were to give a one-hour online lecture, arguments for the existence of God- might get a, a few thousand views.

But if I did a one-hour debate on the existence of God, it could get 50, 100,000 views.

Yes.

People are always interested to say, Oh, well, what's the other guy gonna say?

Right.

What's he gonna say in response to him?

Okay, so you brought that, that debating experience in.

So to, to show the, the, the similarity here, y- you, uh, experienced the conversion to Christ in high school, which I also did.

So tell us ho- how did that happen?

It happened through a girl who sat in front of me in my sophomore German class.

W- was that Sandy-

Sandy Trippen.

Tristan Ack-

Yes.

Or, yeah, yeah.

Sandy, yeah.

And Sandy was one of these types that is always so happy, it just makes you sick.

And I was really miserable at that time.

As a nonbeliever, I had no purpose in life, no reason for living.

I realized that my life and the life of every human being was doomed to end in death, and that eventually the human race would go extinct, and that seemed to me to just put a question mark behind the meaning or significance of anything that-

Yeah.

I did.

And so- I felt the darkness and despair of this naturalistic worldview that I later found out in college was so well-articulated by French existentialist-

Yeah.

philosophers like Sartre and Camus.

Yeah.

And so I, I was really in deep despair, and I went into my high school German class one day, and I tapped Sandy on the shoulder, and she turned around, and I said, Well, what are you always so happy about anyway?

And she said, Bill, it's because I'm saved.

Yeah.

And I said, You're what?

And she said, I know Jesus Christ as my personal savior.

A- and I said, Well, I go to church.

I was a nominal Methodist-

Yeah.

and was attending a church, though it was meaningless, and-

As a ritual, yeah.

and she said, Well, that's not enough, Bill.

You've gotta have him really living in your heart.

Yeah.

And I said, Well, what would he want to do a thing like that for?

And she said, Because he loves you, Bill.

Yeah.

And that just hit me like a ton of bricks.

The idea that the God of the universe could love me-

Yeah.

that worm down there on that speck of dust called Planet Earth just staggered me.

And I went home that night and I found a New Testament that had been given to me by the Gideons in the fifth grade when they visited our elementary school.

Yeah.

And for the first time, I opened it and began to read it.

And as I did, I was absolutely captivated by the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

Yeah.

There was a wisdom about his words that I'd never encountered before and there, especially, was an authenticity-

Yeah.

about his life that was just undeniable.

And, and I realized that I, I couldn't just throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I couldn't reject him.

And so-

Yeah.

that sent me on a search that lasted about six munch- months, and finally ended with me just coming to the end of my rope and crying out to God, and experiencing this tremendous infusion of, uh, divine joy-

Yeah.

uh, a, a transformation spiritually that, uh, I think was b- being born again.

Yeah.

A, a kind of inner spiritual rebirth.

And it changed my life, because I had thought enough about this message during those six months to realize that if Bill Craig ever became a Christian, I could do nothing less than devote my entire life-

Yeah.

to spreading this message among mankind.

Because if this were really the truth-

Yeah.

then it is the greatest message ever announced.

And, and then you, you feel like this, I think you used the reference before, the, the, the burden of sharing the Gospel even, especially even through debate and other formats.

Th- there's the joy and the, the joy of sharing the Gospel, but then just the, the, the humbling burden of the Holy Spirit working through us.

As Paul says in First Corinthians, we are God's coworkers-

Yes.

in planting in the vineyard.

So the similarity there, so I was, you know, not religious at all.

I was 16 years old, and it was a, a girl in my Spanish class-

Oh!

who in No, the similarities get even more-

This is uncanny.

It's, well, even more.

Ve- we even noticed, everyone, be- before this, uh, Dr. Craig and I have the same style of wedding ring.

We were I wear a, uh, I wear a rubber one, uh, when I, I do martial arts and things like that.

So it's, it, it's just Bill, it's just I can call you Bill, right?

Yes, of course.

I love that.

Uh, it, it's just so It's like, hey, so I was 16 years old, it was my Spanish class, and there was a girl.

Her name was Mary Allen, uh, Mary Ellen.

And, and she just, uh, said, Hey, our, our church, we're gonna, we're gonna go to a new burger place that opened up called In-N-Out.

Uh-

Oh!

do you wanna come?

And so the, the youth group would have, there was, there was the, the evening church service and there would be an activity for the teenagers afterwards.

Right.

And so then she invited me, and I said, I don't know if I'm up for the church service yet.

I'll go to the, the burger place with you guys.

So I went, and we got on the bus and went there, and then I started going back to, to church, and I felt this idea, similar to you, like, that I'm being told, well, God wants to come down and, and be here in this place, and that he, he loves me.

Like, like people ask me, like, What's the hardest thing for you to wrap your head around?

And some people might wanna say, It's Hilbert's Hotel.

Or something like that.

Or the Infinite Hotel.

Like, for me, the hardest thing is that like, I could never really love an amoeba.

Like, if I think of an amoeba, like a little one-celled creature, I could put it in a terrari.

I can't love that thing.

The, the distance between me and that amoeba, it's vast-

Yeah.

but still finite.

But so, if I can't love an amoeba, how could the infinite God love me?

Aye.

The o- I can only take that on faith that he's demonstrated it on the cross.

Otherwise, I couldn't reason my way-

Yeah.

to that.

I, uh, that he's, he's taken this, this self-divine revelation to do that, and that And I remember just six months late- sorry, six months later, I was going through this like, you know, Lord, I believe in you.

But part of my journey was I had to say, okay, you know, I love science, Young Astronomers club, uh, and I had thought, like, to be a Christian, I had to be a young Earth creationist.

I had to-

Oh.

I had to believe a certain theology, and I thought, well, if I have to believe that, I can't be a Christian.

But then I saw other people, like And a lot of them, they were evangelical philosophers.

Oh.

Uh, so there were some Catholics.

One was Peter Kreeft.

Mm-hmm.

I read his book with Ronald Tacelli, uh, A Handbook of Christian Apologetics.

I remember getting that at the bookstore.

But then, uh, I started reading through, uh, your I, I saw your debates, and I thought, okay, then I gotta go deeper than that.

And I think I got I think I had the second edition of Reasonable Faith.

Okay.

That was the one where y- y- they, they had Craig Blomberg's th- About the Gospel-

Yes.

was kinda in there, uh, uh, but, uh, I love the third Third edition looks very spiffy, by the way.

So, um, but yeah, and I Uh, just seeing that y- you, what I always appreciated about your work was that you understood that we as Christians have to engage what are scholars saying, let's represent it accurately, and then engage it appropriately.

So, uh, how, how has did your journey go?

So you, you went, you studied Well, I guess you were already getting into academics, and you were engaging scholarship, but now you had to parlay that into making it accessible to popular people, and accessible in the debate format, 'cause a lot of people are Y- what makes you unique, I think, is that there are a lot of professors who can engage people at the scholarly level, but if they had to talk to a regular person or do a debate-

Mm.

oh, it'd be, be helpless to understand what are they even talking about.

But I think your work has blessed so many people because it, it reaches those, those two areas understanding the differences there.

Have you n- have you tried to notice that balance in your own work?

Well, it certainly is a balance, and I had the great advantage, after I graduated from college, of taking two years out of my education, and I joined the staff of a ministry called Campus Crusade for Christ.

Right.

And for two years, I was on staff at Northern Illinois University, where every day, I was going into the dorms and into the student union, sharing my faith in Christ-

Yeah.

leading fellows to a Christian commitment-

Yeah.

and then discipling them in how to go as a grow as a Christian.

And so that was wonderful, practical training in evangelism and discipleship that served me very well later on.

And, and after that stint was completed with Crusade, uh, I married a staff girl named Jan Coleman.

We were married on the campus at NIU-

Yeah.

and then together we went on to seminary and pursued my graduate studies.

So, even after doing the graduate studies, I had the experience, uh, and the burden of sharing the gospel-

Yeah.

in a popular, winsome, accessible way-

Yeah.

and wanted to continue to do that.

Actually, it's interesting.

My inspiration in this-

Yeah.

was Immanuel Kant.

Oh, really?

Because Kant had published his Critique of Pure Reason-

Right.

which was so incomprehensible-

Oh my goodness.

so difficult, that he fol-

And he, and he makes up his own words for things.

Like, he Is that Like, that doesn't actually help, but yeah.

Okay, so he wrote Yeah.

So he followed it up with a little book called Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, which was meant to be a sort of popularization-

Okay.

and explanation of his critique, and I thought, what a great strategy.

And so when I published my doctoral work, for example, from the University of Birmingham is The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz.

Um There we are.

Right here.

There it is.

And then The Kalam Cosmological Argument-

Yeah.

I popularized it-

Yeah.

and also put it out in a little book called The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe-

Yes.

which was for the layperson and, and non-believer.

So I've always tried to follow that dual level, um, strategy-

Right.

in my work of doing the finest scholarly work I was capable of, published in professional journals and top academic presses-

Yeah.

but then also publishing the same material in a popularized form in a way that would be accessible to laypeople.

I think that that's a, a great strategy, and I've also noticed that for our, our Catholic listeners who are interested, there are Catholic scholars that do something, uh, similar, Brant Pitre, Michael Barber, and Scott Hahn.

Uh, they will publish a book for an academic press and then get a permission to take like that 600-page manuscript, whittle it down to a, you know, a 300-page, uh, volume that a popular reader can, can wrap their head around.

Yeah.

When it comes to the uncanny similarities between you and I- uh, so when it comes to debates, people ask me, 'cause I've done a fair number of debates, uh, where did I get my experience?

And I never had any formal debate training.

I, I never did the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Where my training came from was after I graduated college, I, I worked for a pro-life ministry, and then I felt really moved to want to do something about the scourge of legal abortion in the United States.

Right.

So, I went and joined the staff of a traveling pro-life missionary group called Justice for All.

And so, we would travel the country and set up large photo exhibits on college campuses-

Oh.

with pictures of the unborn before and after abortion.

Oh, boy.

People would get s- they would come up and they'd get so mad at me.

Sometimes if I was a little wry, I would say, Wh- why are you so mad at me?

I'm, I'm not the one who did this to these children.

Yes.

So, but it, but it got the conversation going.

We would get hundreds of people would come and dialogue with us, and so I spent, uh, a few years doing that, traveling, and that gave me the experience of the one-on-one dialogue.

But what was interesting was that we wouldn't just talk about the issue of abortion, because eventually people I would say, Well, look, if the unborn are human beings, human beings should have equal rights.

And they'll say, Well, why think humans have any value at all?

Oh, wow.

Well, maybe humans are made in the image of an ultimate source of value.

And so we very quickly I found myself talking about, uh, the existence of God-

Yes.

the resurrection of Christ with all Like, it was the perfect opening-

Yes.

to talk about the Gospel with these students, and then later on, we would, you know, we were trained in talking about the issue of abortion, but I would lead special seminars teaching my other colleagues, Okay, and then if people ask you about atheism or about Jesus, here is an approach that I find to be helpful.

And I was reading your books at the time.

Uh, Mike Licona's works, Gary Habermas, uh, and I just felt so blessed from that.

And so, so my experience in trying to make things accessible to people, it did come from that, uh, that missionary one-on-one, not just being ivory tower-

Right.

head in the books.

It's talking to real people, conversations over and over, and especially because the issue of abortion helped me to fine-tune how to keep a cool head when someone's-

Oh.

a little hot-buttoned.

Yes.

You know?

And so, in doing that, and then to continue the uncanny similarities, that's where I met my wife.

She was another missionary.

Oh.

Yeah, so we, she was doing that, and she was just this little, petite, funny blonde girl, and we were at the debrief once, and, uh, I can come off a little bit I'm very introverted, melancholic, analytic person, and she's the blonde, bubbly extrovert, and I was just, just infatuated-

Yes.

when, uh, we were doing the debrief and, and she said, uh, So I was talking to a professor and telling him, 'Here's why abortion is wrong,' and I was asking him, What do you think about this?

What do you think about that?

And the professor said, You can't just ask me a bunch of questions about this.

And she said, Why not?

And she was just so perky and fun about it.

Right.

But she was just courageous and wanted to do philosophy with the Socratic method, and so th- and those, those conversations really taught me how to use that method, so that's where we met, and then a few years later, w- we got married.

But it was those engagements to help people see, okay, using a, a calm, Socratic approach with accessible evidence people can wrap their heads around, you can make the Christian faith accessible to people.

Yeah.

It's not something you just have to take on faith.

And there's a- another lesson here, Trent, that I think our listeners, uh, need to hear.

Yeah.

And that is we both married women who were partnered with us-

Yes.

in ministry, and who therefore shared our vision-

Yeah.

and our burden, and that is so gratifying and helpful as you go forward in life.

One of the great dangers to any marriage relationship is growing separateness.

Yeah.

That you begin to lead separate lives and then increasingly you find yourself strangers-

Yeah.

to each other.

Whereas if you're partnered in the way that you and I both have been-

Yeah.

there's a, a unity there and a glue that helps to counteract that growing separateness.

Uh, it has blessed my marriage in so many ways, Dr. Craig, to know that Laura and I, we have that shared bond that, that she, she also did missionary work, and what I love is that she's just so brave in what she does.

She was once on a, doing a public highway demonstration showing images of abortion-

Oh, wow.

on the public highway- to, to show, Hey-

So she is a real soldier.

Oh, yeah.

So th- I think she was 19 years old, seven- she was young, 17, 18, 19 when she was doing that, but I think she might've been seven- no, she was 17.

She was a minor.

Gosh.

Uh, so she was doing that, and the police were called-

Oh.

and they were arrested, but then later sued the- she was part of the lawsuit to sue the police department for an unjust arrest that infringed-

Oh.

their First Amendment rights.

Yeah.

And they won.

Wow.

And so she, and so she, uh, you know, persevered in that, but, but she had th- the desire to want to be, to be brave, to share the Gospel, to share important truths no matter what the cost was.

And I remember once actually w- during my discerning days as a young man, I, I went on a date with another girl and we were talking and I said, Oh, I've done pro-life work and I, you know, fight abortion.

And she said, Oh, that's great.

I just can't stand the people with the big, ugly pictures.

Oh.

I'm like, Well, the rest of this date's gonna be very awkward.

Well, yeah.

Start looking at your watch.

Yes.

Now, did you say your wife's name is Laura?

Laura, yes.

That's Chan's middle name.

Stop it.

Stop it right now.

This is getting out of hand.

I love that.

So, uh, let's talk a little bit also about your your career.

So you went into your, uh, philosophical doctorate and your, your theological work.

Yeah.

With philosophy, you focused on the Kalam cosmological argument.

And you kinda brought this argument back from the dead.

Can you, uh, t- 'cause originally, like, um, well, I remember there was that debate, uh, when you think about debates on atheism, uh, in the mid-20th century, like the most famous one would be like the Father Copleston debate-

Yes.

with Bertrand Russell.

And mostly there, it's, well, if things are contingent, and you know, and Bertrand Russell would say, I think your error is you think every man has a mother, so the human race has a mother.

But that's, you know, and he then of course, that's, that's a, that's not the fallacy being applied at the contingency argument.

But they were focused more on that, the, the Kalam argument-

Yeah.

the idea that you could use reason to show the past had a, a beginning, and so the universe has a cause, just wasn't very popular, uh-

No.

by that point.

And then, what, uh, what motivated you to wanna research that?

When I graduated from Wheaton, just before graduation, there was a sale in the bookstore.

And on the clearance table, there was a book by Stuart Hackett-

Yeah.

called The Resurrection of Theism.

Yeah.

And I'd heard of this book, but never read it, so I decided to buy it.

And after graduation that summer, I read this book.

Mm-hmm.

And the centerpiece of Hackett's argument was what I later came to call the Kalam cosmological argument.

Yeah.

And I was absolutely astonished at his book.

Yeah.

He was defending this argument for the existence of God that, as you say, I, I thought had been utterly eclipsed.

Yes.

And he was refuting every refutation and objection conceivable against it.

Yeah.

And I thought to myself, I have got to settle my mind-

Yeah.

about the soundness of this argument.

I can't see anything the matter with it, but I want to be sure.

And so I purposed in my heart that if I were to ever do doctoral work in philosophy, I would do it-

Yes.

on this argument for the existence of God.

And in God's good timing, that did happen.

Uh, we moved to England to study under John Hick at the University of Birmingham.

Yeah.

And he agreed to let me write on the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

Yeah.

And when we arrived in Birmingham, this is interesting, he, he said to me, Are you sure you want to write on the cosmological argument?

Isn't that sort of like beating a dead horse?

And I said, No, no, I really do wanna do this.

And he permitted me to do so.

Yeah.

And at the end of my s- time, after turning in the doctoral thesis and so forth, I said to Professor Hick, Do you still think the cosmological argument is like beating a dead horse?

And he said, No, no, no, not at all.

And so, uh, that was just a, a tremendous, uh, victory, and out of that work came the two books-

Yes.

that you have here, as well as the popular level book-

Yeah.

that I mentioned.

And I have used this argument in debates and on university campuses over and over again-

It, it has born-

over the decades.

It's born a lot of spiritual fruit.

We were discussing-

Yeah.

before the episode about different arguments for the existence of God.

Uh, and you were saying that some people, uh, like if they approach your work and they start with the Leibnizian contingency argument-

Mm-hmm.

that can be hard for a regular And I've noticed this myself when I try to explain arguments for God.

When you start to explain the contingency argument, that there must be a necessary explanation for all of these contingent objects, or facts, or however you wanna phrase it, people's eyes just start to glaze over.

Yeah, and this was the argument, as you say, that was front and center in the Copleston-Russell-

Yes.

debate, the contingency argument.

And so, what I was doing was something much different than that.

Yes.

It was the idea that, and what I was saying to you earlier, people it takes a lot to get your head to wrap around necessity and contingency.

Mm-hmm.

But people have a natural intuitive sense of asking the question, How did everything begin?

Yes.

It, it just comes so naturally for people-

Yes.

to want to know, Well, I know what happened yesterday.

But what happened before yesterday?

And there's actually a wonderful book.

I think his name is Farrell.

He wrote it was a, it's a biography of Father Georges Lemaître-

Oh.

who is the, the, the Belgian priest who helped to promote the Big Bang Theory.

The one-

Helped to discover it?

Yeah, yeah.

Well, he discovered it, he, along with Friedman.

Yes.

But yeah, he, uh, he, I mean, he didn't call it the Big Bang.

Fred Hoyle called it that.

Yes.

But, uh, it was a biography on Monsignor Lemaître.

And, uh, the, the title of the biography is The Day Without a Yesterday.

Huh.

So the idea of there was a first day.

Yeah.

It's a day without a yesterday.

Yeah.

And people have that Like, could there have been a day without a yesterday?

Uh, and so, and so I find when I share the Kalam argument with people, it, it just naturally, they, they, they grapple on to it.

But you, but your work, what you started, I think it was 1979 was, uh-

Yes.

was this book.

Um, oh, my goodness, the we could fill this whole room with volumes that have that, that you opened the floodgate of so much thought about infinity and cosmology.

And, uh, and it's encouraged me, also, in, in the argument.

Uh, we're, we're not gonna hash it all out here, but I, I've shifted my view a little bit on the Kalam argument.

I know you've engaged some of my criticisms.

But what I'm excited about is how I look at the Kalam now, 'cause your argument is whatever begins to exist as a cause, the universe began to exist and it has a cause.

We use a conceptual analysis to have divine attributes of the cause.

And we can use reason to show either that if actual infinites cannot exist and the past is an actual infinite, the past cannot be beginningless or it cannot be formed- by successive addition.

Right.

Um, and, uh, and I've had s- I've changed my thought on, on some of those, though I'm still a big fan of the successive addition argument.

Mm-hmm.

Um, just on a quick tangent.

Well, I'll save that for later.

Uh, so, but what I've been really interested in is the, the causal finitism arguments-

Ah.

from people like Alex Pruss or Andrew Loke.

Uh, I'm, I'm forming kind of something that I see as like a, a complementary argument to your position.

Yes.

I think this is worth mentioning for our viewers-

Yes.

today is that in addition to the many criticisms of the Kalam cosmological argument that have been published, there are brilliant new defenders like Alexander Pruss-

Yes.

uh, who is a mathematical philosopher, brilliant guy.

Yes.

Rob Koontz from University of Texas-Austin.

Yeah.

You mentioned Andrew Loke, um, at University of Hong Kong.

And Pruss, um, defends what he calls causal finitism.

Yes.

That is to say that no effect can be the result of an infinite number of causes.

Yes.

Um, and also then defends, uh, arguments for the causal, uh, finitude of the past-

Yes.

that you cannot have a sequence of, uh, uh, temporally ordered causes that goes back infinitely.

Yes.

And this has been so gratifying to me-

Yes.

to see that there are these additional complementary arguments in support of the critical second premise that the universe began to exist, so that is tremendously gratifying.

And then there have been scientific advances-

Yes.

by people like, uh, Aaron Wall developing the, uh, Wall's theorem about the generalized second law of thermodynamics-

Yes.

that supports the beginning of the universe and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem came along, uh, supporting that premise as well.

So both philosophically and scientifically, this is a cutting edge-

Oh, yes.

argument that continues to advance.

So where I'm at in the argument, to, to complement yours, that if your argument states that a beginningless past would be an actual infinite and so that is not metaphysically possible, I'm defending a, just a more modest claim to go with that, to say that, um, a beginningless past, uh, could entail, uh, contradictions, uh, with things like, for example, Andrew Loke's-

Yes.

uh, example of constructing Hilbert's Hotel room by room-

Yeah.

in a beginningless past.

So for people who don't know, you can Google Hilbert's Hotel and watch a nice Well, the Reasonable Faith website has a good visual, uh, summary of the Kalam argument.

And the idea And I lo- I love hil- Hilbert's Hotel.

The idea of- an, a h- a hotel with an actually infinite number of rooms leads to all of these, uh, paradoxes.

So the argument that I, that I have been taking saying, well, Hilbert's Hotel, it can't really happen or it's You know, an infinite past is not like Hilbert's Hotel-

Yeah.

Right.

'cause all the rooms exist at one time.

Right.

And Loke says, Okay, fine.

Just build one room at a time.

Right.

You could do one room at a time and you would have it now.

Why, why couldn't you?

And so that's moved me.

The argument for Kalam that I'm interested in, yeah.

And, and that argument-

Yeah.

as Loke illustrates it, is actually St. Bonaventure's.

Yes.

This is, uh, anticipated by Bonaventure.

About the, the, the orbits of the planets and, and-

Well, and, and if there were souls being begotten from eternity, if the race of men went back to infinity-

Yeah.

then there would by, be by now an infinite number of souls-

Yeah.

just as there would be an infinite number of rooms.

And, and this is something that always puzzled me about St. Thomas Aquinas, because Aquinas regi- did not believe-

Yeah.

the, the finitude of the past could be proven by reason.

But he did believe there could not be an actually infinite number of objects-

Yeah.

in the present.

And he gave the example of a, of a blacksmith-

Right.

hammering away at one horseshoe for all eternity or working on a horseshoe for all eternity, and I think one author has posed the Would love to ask.

He said, I'd love to ask Aquinas, what if the blacksmith has been working on horseshoes for all eternity?

Could he have done that?

He'd have an actually infinite number of them, which Aquinas says is not possible.

Yeah.

Someone I, I remember imagines that as the smith works, he breaks-

Yeah, he breaks his hammers.

one hammer after another.

And the question then that someone like Bonaventure or Loke would pose is well then, how many broken hammers will there be by now-

Yes.

in the pile?

And the answer is clearly an actually infinite number.

Yeah.

So what I'm interested in, especially with causal finitism, some atheists have said, well, you could have the Because Pruss' argument and Koontz's argument is that if you had an infinite series, you could have contradictory things-

Yes.

that were real con- real-

Yes.

Because people say, well, Hilbert's Hotel isn't a contradiction.

Right.

It seems to be, and people all agree in the causal finitism there are contradictions here.

And so they'll say I love this response.

Well, there's a Maybe there's just a mysterious force that will prevent the contradictions from arising.

And I say that smells a lot like theism to me- if you have to invoke this to get around it.

So that's why the argument for Kalam I'm interested in is sort of It's kind of like an argument against time travel.

Now-

Huh.

we'll get into time here in a second.

If the A theory is true, where only the present exists, you're not going anywhere in time travel.

That's-

But if the B theory were true, if the past, present, and future were equally real and we talk about time travel, one argument is that, well, time travel can't happen because, uh, meta phy- you know, paradoxes could easily happen.

Yeah.

Yeah.

You, you have the grandfather paradox.

Like, if time travel could happen, I could go back and kill my grandfather .

what's the universe-

Before he has children.

Before he has children, yeah.

That creates a paradox that can't happen, and so time travel can't happen.

Unless you say, Well, maybe there's just some force that will make you slip on a banana peel and you'll never- end up doing it.

So I would say, well, if there could be time travel, it could only happen if there was a divine cause that keeps the universe in order and prevents paradoxes.

But otherwise, no, the universe won't allow these paradoxical things.

That's what I want to explore, saying the same reason time travel is not possible is the same reevil- same reason a beginningless past is not possible, because in such a series, you would get the paradoxes that Koons talks about.

Yeah.

And so that's what I'm exploring, and that it's and it, and it takes a more modest claim in what it's, in what it's making, and it, and it evades in many other criticisms.

But I, yeah, I am grateful.

And it's interesting, what you're saying is, you can pour scholarship into an area and then see so much fruit you never even thought of that will come from it.

Yeah, yeah.

That's so true.

It's been really gratifying in, in this respect.

Yeah.

Well, I need to nerd out a little, little bit more here, 'cause I have I think you once said this was one of your favorite books that you wrote.

But I have, uh, your book titled-

Oh.

Time and Eternity.

Yes.

Uh, if you wanna really give your head a workout- give your brain a workout, uh, I think you've said before that it's hard to think about God, it's hard to think about infinity, and then when you try to put them together in thinking about God and time, it's a cerebral aerobics class.

Right, yes.

Um, but it's really So I- I've been fascinated by that as, as well.

I'm, I'm still somewhat agnostic about I'm trying to make my arguments.

I'm not fully committed to what theory of time is true.

Mm-hmm.

I think I'm trying to make arguments more, well, even if the B theory were true, let's just-

Yeah.

you know, trying to grant as many premises of, of a critic and then still flow from that.

Um, but there's one And we'll be in the nerd territory just for a minute, people.

We'll get back to other stuff here.

Um, there is a theory of time that I am really fascinated by.

Uh, well, I'll, I'll fill in to people who are listening.

I need to serve them, too.

There's two theories of time that are given the highly creative names the A theory and the B theory- or, um, the dynamic, the tensed and the tenseless theory.

Yes.

The idea And I've tried to use the examples of a play and a filmstrip.

So the A theory would say that the present is what's real, the past no longer exists, and the future does not exist yet.

It's the present that exists.

Yes.

Similar to when you're watching a play.

The scenes that were performed are gone, and the scenes that have not been performed, they're not here yet.

Yeah.

But if you watch a filmstrip, it's like, through a projector, there's the present scene you're seeing, and the scenes you watched are still there in the filmstrip.

They've just gone out of your view.

And the scenes that will arrive, well, they're just not there in the projector yet, but they are real.

Yeah.

You just, you just can't see them yet.

Is, that's my best attempt at an analogy that people-

Well, I think it's an excellent analogy.

to understand presentism versus this B theory, the past, present, and future are equally real.

Um, and so it has a lot of ramifications about theology, the, the temporality of God-

It really does.

foreknowledge, providence.

Uh, one view that I So I'm not firmly committed yet, but one view I, I have an attraction towards, this is more of a minority view, is the growing block view.

Oh.

Uh, so if I ever one day am done with, when I could write my big, thick book, I'd love to do one called God and the Growing Block Universe, because if the growing block The growing block says that, uh, instead of just either only the present is real or past, present, and future are equally real, the growing block, for our audience, says the present is real and past events are real.

Yes.

They've been actualized.

The future events are unactualized.

They are not real.

And so the universe is a kind of four-dimensional growing block.

And so, um, I found when I researched that view, it often, uh, overcomes many of the objections from relativity theory.

Uh, there are Uh, a lot of the objections B theorists will make can be overcome.

Uh, I've tried to modify it a little.

Like, I would I'm partial to the view that the, uh it's called the grow-glow view, where the edge is where consciousness lies, and the past block, there is no consciousness.

There's just events.

But the idea here is if this growing block view were true, I could make a really neat argument from successive addition to a beginningless past, and-

Oh, yeah, that's clear.

So that, that's where-

Unfortunately, uh, I think the view is incoherent.

Well, you know, whole review, I understand that.

But I agree with you that if you, if you had a book by the title you suggest, it would sell well.

That's a very good title.

Sure, and there, and there are So, like, the, the, the edge, the glowing edge view is my way of trying to get around the objection, um, uh, if the growing block is true, how do we know we're in the present?

It's more likely we- How do we know We might be in the past and we don't realize it.

You know?

So, um, there's, uh, Daniel Saudek, I think, is his name, he wrote a book called Divine Relativity and the Arrow of Time.

It was a-

Ah.

recent book that I think explores this more.

But that's all there is I wanted to do on philo- But I, uh, philosophy of time is just, uh I love there was a documentary made several years w- I feel like it was a while ago that featured you and Quentin Smith and others.

I don't know if you remember.

Yes, yes.

Quentin has now passed away.

Yes, very sad.

But, uh, he was a good friend.

Yeah.

And we often collaborated.

On this book.

Yes.

Yeah.

Uh, which was the compilation of quite a number of articles published in journals, where we would-

Yeah.

go back and forth with each other, and, uh, we were sharp critics of each other-

Yes, good friends.

but good friends and would sometimes room together at American Philosophical Association meetings.

And so comment on that a little bit more.

What have you seen that in engaging in apologetics, because one thing I find difficult now in the age of social media, and you've told me before our interview you don't monitor, so if you have important journal articles, works to publish, which- all better to you, frankly.

Uh, I'm still in the midst of that 'cause I'm reaching popular level, you know, working on that.

There's just a lot of vitriol sometimes and, uh, snark and, uh, it's like a war.

But you've had an experience, and I've had this experience too with other critics, people like Gavin Ortlund, Alex O'Connor, where there are people who sharply disagree with me, but we can still be amiable-

Yes.

towards one another.

Uh, tell me a bit more about that in your, in your experience and how you, you foster that.

Well, I think that as public representatives of Christ-

Mm-hmm.

it is very important that we exhibit the character of Christ-

Yeah.

in how we interact with people who disagree with us.

Yeah.

And as you know, Jesus taught that if someone strikes you on the right cheek, then turn to him the other also.

Yeah.

And to love your enemies and pray for those who speak evil of you and despitefully use you, and, and bless them.

And so, as Christians, we want to exemplify that kind of character.

And so, what we want to do is to attack arguments-

Yes.

relentlessly, but to treat with love and respect those persons who propound those arguments-

Yes.

with which we disagree.

So it's very telling that in, uh, First Corinthians 10 and verse 5-

We attack arguments.

Paul Yes, Paul says, um, that we, uh, attack arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of Christ.

Yes.

Taking every thought captive to obey Christ.

And so, he- his focus is, is right.

It's on the arguments, not on the people.

I love that passage 'cause Paul says that we have weapons that are powerful-

Mm-hmm.

capable of destroying fortresses.

Mm-hmm.

Uh, but, you know, but our battle, we attack the arguments.

We take every thought captive to Christ.

So, oh, goodness.

Well, I- I- I think it has really been a joy to be able to s- to speak with you on, on all of these subjects.

Uh, I think one thing that a lot of my listeners will want me to, to ask you about though, because I'm a Catholic apologist.

That's something I've engaged in a lot, frequently.

Uh, what are your, your I know you've been asked the question, um, many times, uh, but what are some of your thoughts on Catholicism and what-

Mm-hmm.

what do you think is one of the biggest, like, stumbling blocks to you as that being like a, like a viable theological-

Uh-huh.

system for you?

Um, our ministry, Reasonable Faith, wants to be a resource to Christians of all-

Yeah.

of the major confessions.

And so, it has been really encouraging to me when I'm out traveling and speaking, I will have Coptic Christians-

Yes.

come up to me, as well as Orthodox Christians in long black robes, Catholics and Protestants saying that they're using the materials-

Yes.

of Reasonable Faith in their own ministries.

In fact, we met someone who told us that the monks at the monastery in Mount Athos-

Oh, wow.

in Greece, he says, They're praying for you, Bill.

Wow.

Uh, there's one monk at the monastery that has access to the outside world through the internet-

Yes.

and collects prayer requests, and they're praying for me.

Oh.

And that just is so humbling.

Yeah.

So we want Catholics to be built up and encouraged-

Yes.

and edified through what we do, even if I'm not a Catholic personal.

Yeah.

Now-

Well, before we go to the, the stumbling blocks, I wanna build on that.

Okay.

I wanna build on that because I found for me, when I wanna share Because I want I believe that Christ established one church, and I, I i- authentically want everyone to belong to that church.

That's why I do share the Catholic faith with people, and I believe it's important, necessary for people's salvation.

However, I have found what's been effective for me in sharing my Catholicism with Protestants is when I create resources for issues that Protestants are really hungry for.

Mm-hmm.

Like, I've met many Protestants who said, I became Catholic, Trent.

I first started reading your book, Persuasive Pro-Life.

Or, I read your book Answering I saw your debate with Alex O'Connor and that just really fired me up to want to learn how to do apologetics.

And so, like, for me, uh, it's similar to how you are.

Like, I, I never want to just focus on, while they are important truth claims I'm committed to defending, I never want to just Like, well, at Council of Trent, I've tried to have a division where I spend a, a quarter of my time on the fundamentals of Christianity, a quarter on important, you know, nice, you know, important elements of theology, 25% on important moral issues, s- you know, so-called same-sex marriage-

Mm-hmm.

or pro-life.

Uh, but to never lose that focus on bringing people to the person of Christ.

Right.

When, when there are so many people that while the Pew Forum has been showing at least that, that the decline in Christianity seems to be leveling off-

Yes.

which is a good thing-

Yes.

I would very much like to take advantage of that 'cause there's still so many people who are apart from Christ.

And I, I just implore I think Catholics, they, they are able to learn a lot from your work and the other work of Protestants who've done so much.

Like, I mean, this book, um, when I was studying for the res- you know, defending Christ's resurrection, like, I loved just poring through.

This is your, um, dissertation on Christ's resurrection.

Yes.

And that and Mike Licona's work, it, it has just It has been helpful.

So I, I, I just really appreciate, yeah, how your work has benefited so many Christians.

And I myself want to benefit all Christians to, to do s- to do s- similar things.

But we ha- we do have important theological differences-

Sure.

and it's okay to- to talk about those things.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So we've got these core beliefs that are very much the same, where we are united.

I want to share today two pieces of advice-

Sure.

for Roman Catholics.

Sure thing.

Uh, one would be theological advice-

Okay.

and the other would be pragmatic.

Okay.

The theological advice would be to Well, here's my concern.

Okay.

It seems to me that Catholic theology, um, is in the straitjacket of the Council of Trent, and that some flexibility in interpreting the documents of Trent-

Mm.

would be in order and would go a long way toward-

Hmm.

bringing consensus.

And particularly what I'm thinking of here is that a number of commentators have noticed that what Trent calls justification-

Mm-hmm.

Protestants would call sanctification.

Hmm, yeah.

And many Catholic New Testament scholars today, like Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmyer, agree that justification in the New Testament is a forensic notion.

It is a legal declaration of righteousness by God, and not an infusion of righteousness into a person.

But sanctification is-

Hmm.

an infusion of righteousness through the indwelling Holy Spirit into the life of a person.

And so if a person reads Trent in such a way that what it says about justification-

Hmm.

is really about sanctification, then it's merely a semantic difference.

We're really talking about the same thing.

And even the doctrine that we, by God's grace, perform works that merit salvation can be given, I think, an acceptable spin-

Right.

if we think of these as rewards given for sanctification.

Well, well, the, the New Testament is replete with the doctrine of rewards.

Yes.

I mean, Jesus even says, talks about, he uses the Greek word misthos, your wages-

Yeah.

for the good works that you do.

Yeah.

And Paul talks about-

But they're not, but yeah, they're not earned.

Right.

They're from God's gratuitous gift of fatherly love for us.

Yes, and so that would be my, my first My theological piece of advice is that I think that we should be able to unite on the forensic nature of justification and then the infusion of sanctifying grace through the Holy Spirit that enables us then to lead more and more Christlike lives, leading to beatification.

My pragmatic advice would be this.

Okay.

I think Roman Catholics need to get rid of infant baptism.

It seems to me that there is a fatal combination here that has had disastrous effects on the church.

Well, it wouldn't just be Catholics.

Many Protestants believe in infant baptism.

Well, yeah, but we're talk-

Sure.

Today I'm talking to a Catholic theologian.

Of course, sure.

Um, the twin doctrines of baptismal regeneration-

Hmm.

and infant baptism, I think, result in a church which is filled with unregenerate non-Christians, because they're trusting that in being baptized as an infant they were regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

Uh, if you simply hold to baptismal regeneration, that regeneration occurs at the moment of baptism, the way Lutherans do-

Hmm.

well, then you could, you could hold to that without great harm if you only baptize believers.

On the other hand, if you do hold to infant baptism, like the Reformed do, but you don't regard that as the moment of regeneration, then again, the consequences-

Hmm.

won't be so bad.

But it's this combination of baptismal regeneration and infant baptism that I think results in a church that is filled with so-called cradle Catholics who have been nominally Catholic from birth but who live like non-Christians because they're really unregenerate.

And so it seems to me that it would be very easy for the Roman Catholic Church, without any great change of doctrine, to just say, We're not gonna baptize infants anymore.

We're going to adopt believers' baptism.

Uh, I would say that is one that's gonna be non-negotiable-

Okay.

from the Catholic perspective, uh, especially since the, the belief in, in baptismal regeneration I mean, that, the belief in baptismal regeneration and, uh, the focus While there's some silence on infant baptism, in early historical record, even people like R. C. Sproul admit that it's, it's testified to early.

There isn't opposition to it.

The only opposition in the early church was people said, Well, you should wait eight days to baptize an infant, 'cause that's when circumcision was done.

And you had early writers saying, No, do it immediately.

You know-

Yeah.

children die all the time.

Tho- some, remember, would delay as long as possible-

Yes.

so that their post-baptismal sins wouldn't need-

But-

penance and support.

Abusus non tollis usus.

Use does not annul the proper use.

Okay.

Uh, so I would say that baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, it really does represent Christian teaching for 1,500 years, and I'd say that there's a, a strong pedigree to that.

But I think this ties a bit into your view about philosophical theology, um- because you operate, I think you're one of the most honest people when it comes to operating under the principle of sola Scriptura.

Uh-huh.

That, uh, for you, your f- your theology is informed by the Bible alone.

And there's many other Protestants who will say that, uh, but then they're critical of you because you hold to a different christology.

Mm-hmm.

Like you would hold to the view that Christ has only one will, rather than a human-

Yeah.

and a divine will.

Right.

And there are Protestants who will say to you, Yeah, but, but Bill, that, that contradicts the ecumenical councils, and your response is, But we're Protestant.

Why does that matter?

Yeah.

So, so I, I think that that is, um So for me, when I'm engaging other, other Protestants on a lot of these historical theological questions, I find it interesting that many of them will try to, uh, incorporate these early creeds, early ecumenical councils, but then have sort of an arbitrary cutoff date on which ones-

Oh.

are, are binding to them, and, and, and which aren't.

Mm-hmm.

But I, I, I see Whenever I see lax Christians, um, it's, it's always a, um, it's a concern, and to try to find out, okay, well, what is, what is the root of this?

Whether you see it in the Protestant world or in the Catholic world, but I, I do get concerned because for me, I would say that the initial justification, I mean, it could be forensic and it can be infused.

It's like when God declares, Let there be light, he declares it and something actually happens.

Yeah.

I find So for me, like I was baptized when I was 17 years old, you know?

So I was not baptized as a child.

I was-

Right.

And, and I, but I-

Yeah.

See, that's a pattern I want you to adopt.

But, but I, I missed out on the, the graces of baptism that I even see in my own-

Oh.

children who received the sacrament early.

So for me, there, there is a bit of a pickle here when it comes to, um, salvation and faith, because it seems like, I mean, you have children.

I got little kids right now.

It seems like children are capable of sinning at an age before they're capable of accepting Christ.

Not, not gravely sinning, but they're capable of like I have a four, you know, you have a four and a five-year-old.

Sure, disobedience.

Y- yes.

I can't There can't be such a thing to me as moral wrongdoing that isn't sinful.

Boy, this is really interesting.

I get into this in volume three of my Systematic Philosophical Theology in the section on man as sinner.

Yeah.

Okay.

And I would hold something similar, but I express it differently.

Okay.

I think it's possible for someone to do moral evil and so be sinful-

Mm-hmm.

but not be a transgressor because he has not broken a divine command to him.

Okay.

Uh, and so I, I want to say s- something very similar to that with respect to infants and little children, that they can have a s- sinful disposition or-

Yeah.

or do things wrong, but they're not transgressors because they're not, uh, willfully violating a divine command.

Yeah.

So I, I think that's where So to me, when it comes to the issues of justification, I will agree with you that Catholics and Protestants can fine-tune the semantic differences.

And, uh, several decades ago, there was a joint statement on declaration between Catholics and Lutherans-

Yes.

for example.

Yes, I've read that.

And, and there is a very good book out, you talked about Raymond Brown and, and, and all that.

There's a very good book, uh, by Michael Barber, Kincaid, and Petri, Catholic scholars, called Paul: A New Covenant Jew.

And so it's a wonderful study of, of Pauline theology, and some of this is a bit of an offshoot of the new perspective on Paul somewhat.

Yeah.

And I think that that can help also form a bridge.

So I think on some of the finer points, and I think I agree with you that oftentimes Catholics and Protestants can talk past one another, especially with 'Cause for Catholics, justification and sanctification tend to be more synonymous terms-

Yeah.

the renewal of the inner man, versus how Protestants might define it.

Um, but I think that even in Protestantism, there can be similar, uh, abuses or, or negative, uh, consequences of things like, uh, from eternal security, thinking salvation can't be lost, or, you know, just saying the, the sinner's prayer, was I really saved?

Yeah.

Uh, so I, I think that whenever we judge, I think for us to, 'cause we're not gonna hash everything out here, it's always best when you're looking at any system, whether it's theology or philosophy, is to compare, uh, the best members and best articulations, best to best, not best to worst.

Like in every system-

Yeah.

best, best to best on everything-

Yeah.

I think would be, um

Yeah.

But, but I think that you do have, um You issue, I think, what, what is a fair point that I often can be jealous of that, uh, that among evangelicals, there can just be such a, a tight-knit community that, that really enforces, uh, uh, not enforces, but, uh, promotes a vigorous faith community and, and, and a sharing of the faith.

Yeah.

Uh, I mean, even here, we're at this Baptist church.

I love that outside, there's parking dedicated to new visitors.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And a Catholic Now, I'm an introvert.

When I went to a Catholic church I went to a Baptist church once, and I was so overwhelmed by everyone saying hi to me.

Oh.

So for my temperament, I'm very more introverted-

Yeah.

and, uh, so when I went to a Catholic church and nobody said hi to me, that was a relief for me.

Oh, a relief.

I was like, Oh, I can rest easy here and just sit quietly and pray.

And, but for other people, they would feel very left out or feel very, um, unwelcome.

So I think the, the problem of, of the nominal believer, well, and, and you, you were a nominal believer yourself in a Methodist church before you were-

Yes, I was.

That's true.

It's like, how do we what is the cause of that, and how do we How do we engage that?

I think I think that is a big question that I, that all of us, every denomination does have to address, for sure.

Yeah.

So, um, all right.

So I guess we've We've covered all that.

I'm trying to think if there's anything else, but, um, maybe I'll just end with what What is some advice that you might have?

Well, I guess maybe Maybe I'll get some advice from you.

Uh, people You know, it's interesting when I will share, you know, my books, and I'll do debates, and people will come to me, and they'll talk about how like, Oh, Trent, you know, your book helped me to go back to church or believe in Jesus.

Like-

Good.

Thank you so much.

But what's weird is I can feel like this, um, this humbling big weight on my shoulders-

Oh.

Yeah.

of just like And when people say that, I always say back to them, uh, Praise be to God-

Yes.

for how he used my book in your life.

Uh, but it's like this humbling weight of, like, a person's spiritual journey having some kind of dependency on me.

I'm just a man.

I'm just a fallible individual-

Yeah.

who makes all kinds of mistakes and will make more mistakes.

Um, I don't know.

It's, um It can be a lot of weight.

It's like C.S. Lewis had that great prayer, the apolo- do you remember No, it's The Apologist's Evening Prayer-

Mm-hmm.

by C.S. Lewis, and where it's It's almost a bit of melancholy in how he describes the spiritual weight an apologist has.

I don't know if you've felt that and how you manage that.

Well, I've certainly felt the humility that you mentioned when you people tell you that God has used you in their lives.

That is so gratifying and humbling.

And I am aware that as a public Christian, it's vitally important for me to maintain my marriage and to try to be sure that my children come to know and follow Christ as well.

Yeah.

If we fail in our marriages and our families, then it does not matter what sort of accolades or success we have academically or ministry-wise.

We will have failed-

Yeah.

in God's sight.

So anyone who does want to embark on this sort of ministry first and foremost needs to guard his heart and to cultivate those relationships with wife and children that honor God and will keep you from disgracing the name of Christ by falling into sin in the way that so many Christian leaders have.

So that is certainly a great responsibility, and I think that this underlies underlines the importance of maintaining a good devotional life of Bible reading, prayer, meaningful worship-

Yeah.

sharing the gospel.

We need to make sure that we're not just cerebral Christians, but that our hearts-

Yeah.

are warmed toward God and that we love him and want to our lives to reflect his love.

So that's, I think, just really vitally important.

Amen.

Well, Dr. Craig, thank you so much for sitting down with me.

You've made an invaluable contribution to my life and the lives of many people, so I just want to thank you for that.

Well, thanks, Trent.

It's been good to be with you today.

Good to be with you too.