Defenders: Excursus on Natural Theology (Part 3): The Role of Arguments and Evidence

Summary

---

Defenders Podcast

Excursus on Natural Theology (Part 3): The Role of Arguments and Evidence

Host: Dr. William Lane Craig
Date: April 27, 2022

---

Main Theme & Purpose

This episode focuses on the source and justification of belief in God and Christianity, specifically exploring the roles played by the Holy Spirit, arguments, and evidence. Dr. Craig examines whether faith for both believers and unbelievers is primarily a result of rational arguments/evidence or the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. He discusses concepts of rationality, warrant, and how Christians can be both justified and confident in their beliefs, drawing on philosophical insights (notably Plantinga) and scriptural grounding.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Role of the Holy Spirit for Believers and Unbelievers

• Holy Spirit’s Witness: For believers, belief in God is “properly basic” and grounded in the inner witness of the Holy Spirit ([00:02]).
• Unbelievers & the Holy Spirit: Unbelievers are not “indwelt” by the Holy Spirit but still experience His “special ministry,” which convicts them of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:7-11).
  • Scriptural Backing:
    • John 16:7-11 – Jesus describes the Spirit’s work among those who "do not believe in me" ([01:07]).
    • Romans 3:10-11, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 8:7 – Human nature unaided does not seek or understand God; spiritual understanding requires the Spirit's action ([03:12]).
    • John 6:44 – “No one comes to me unless the Father...draws him.”
• Seeking & Response: Those who are open to God are already being drawn by the Spirit, and persistent refusals are due not to lack of evidence but rejection of this drawing ([06:23]).
• Assurance of Truth: Jesus' words in John 7:16-17 are highlighted—those truly seeking God will recognize the authenticity of Christ’s teaching ([06:59]).
• Quote:

  "Anyone who does respond to the drawing of God's Spirit with an open mind and an open heart, can know with assurance that Christianity is true because God's Spirit will convict him eventually that it is true." – Dr. Craig ([06:23])

---

2. Rationality, Warrant, and Properly Basic Belief

• Rationality vs. Warrant ([11:41]):
  • Rationality: A belief is rational if it doesn’t violate epistemic duties or cognitive norms, but can still be false.
  • Warrant: Knowledge requires “warrant”—a reliable, proper function of one’s faculties.
  • Plantinga’s View: The witness of the Holy Spirit operates as a reliable, belief-forming faculty, thus Christian belief is not just rational, but warranted and amounts to knowledge.
    • Quote:

      “Plantinga affirms... the central truths of the Gospel are self‐authenticating. That is to say, they do not get their evidence or warrant by means of being believed on the evidential basis of other propositions.” – Dr. Craig citing Plantinga ([14:50])

---

3. Arguments and Evidence: Subsidiary but Significant Role

• Ministerial vs. Magisterial Reason ([18:15]):
  • Magisterial: Reason judges the truth of Christianity—seen as improper.
  • Ministerial: Reason serves faith—view Craig endorses.
    • “Philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology. Reason is a God given tool to help us better understand and defend our faith.” ([18:53])
• Dual Warrant ([19:35]):
  • Christians may have both the inner witness of the Holy Spirit and independent evidence/arguments, providing double assurance ("dual warrant").
  • Benefits of Dual Warrant:
    • Greater confidence during doubt or spiritual dryness.
    • Inspiration for evangelism and faith-sharing.
    • Encouragement for unbelievers to be open to the Spirit.
    • Quote:

      “Having independent arguments and evidence could give the believer support during times of spiritual dryness or doubt...” ([20:48])

---

4. Discussion, Objections, and Clarifications

Experiences Claimed by Other Religions ([09:02])

• Question: What about Mormons or others who claim spiritual confirmation?
• Craig’s Response: False claims ("burning in the bosom," etc.) do not undermine the possibility of authentic experience. The presence of counterfeit does not invalidate the genuine ([09:25]).
• Quote:

  "Spurious claims to a witness of the Holy Spirit do nothing to undermine logically the authenticity of a true claim..." ([09:25])

Faith Without Fruit ([10:12])

• Example: "Dead faith"—emotional experiences not changing lives.
• Craig: True witness of the Spirit produces fruit (love, joy, peace, etc.) ([10:56]).

How to Distinguish Between Proper and Improper Use of Reason ([21:27])

• Magisterial Reason: May lead to unjustified apostasy.
• Ministerial Reason: Faith is grounded in Spirit’s self-authenticating work, not just arguments.
• Apostasy and Accountability: No one is justified in unbelief before God—witness of the Spirit is always operative ([23:48]).

The Law Written on the Heart ([24:57])

• Properly Basic Moral Knowledge: Humans inherently know right/wrong—a parallel to basic belief in God.
• Craig’s Moral Argument:
  1. Objective moral values and duties exist.
  2. If God did not exist, they would not exist.
  3. Therefore, God exists.
• Moral knowledge is also properly basic ([26:18]).

Competing Religious Certainties ([28:24])

• Muslim, Mormon Claims: Other faiths also claim self-authenticating divine witness.
• Craig: For those with genuine Holy Spirit witness, the authentication is self-evident. Arguments and evidence can undermine false confidence; Holy Spirit can overcome counterfeit experiences ([28:52]).

Belief, Knowledge, and Certainty ([30:29])

• Knowledge ≠ Certainty: One can have strong belief (even certainty) and still be wrong; knowledge requires “warrant.”
• Quote:

  "Certainty is neither a sufficient condition for knowledge nor a necessary condition for knowledge." ([30:43])

Faith and Reason: Not Opposed ([33:37])

• Craig: Faith and reason are not divorced; arguments/evidence can still lead to faith. It's just that belief doesn't require evidence due to the Spirit's witness ([33:53]).

The Role of Christian Witness ([35:04])

• Witnessing with Love: Sharing faith ministerially, rooted in love and testimony, invites deeper insight and effective outreach.
• Holy Spirit’s Superiority: God’s Spirit can overcome any competing spiritual experiences ([36:15]).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On God drawing the unbeliever:

  "If it weren't for the work of the Holy Spirit, no one would ever become a Christian." – Dr. Craig ([03:00])

• On faith and intellect:

  "If you had to argue your way to God, then getting to heaven would be like getting into Harvard. You'd have to be a certain intellectual..." – Kevin (quoting Dinesh D’Souza), ([07:29])

• On false spiritual claims:

  "Just because someone falsely claims to know something by the burning of the bosom...doesn't mean that a person who has the genuine article is therefore unwarranted." – Dr. Craig ([09:25])

• On dead vs. living faith:

  “If it’s a genuine witness of the Holy Spirit that you’ve received, then you will bear the fruit of the Spirit.” – Dr. Craig ([10:56])

• On faith, knowledge, and doubt:

  "Certainty is neither a sufficient condition for knowledge nor a necessary condition for knowledge." – Dr. Craig ([30:43])

• On faith vs. reason in salvation:

  "So you can get into heaven without argument and evidence, but you can get into heaven through the arguments and evidence too, if they lead you to put your faith in Christ." – Dr. Craig ([33:53])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:02] – Introduction to properly basic beliefs, Holy Spirit’s role for unbeliever/believer
• [07:29] – Comment by Kevin: Dinesh D’Souza, humility, and intellectualism
• [09:02] – Mormon “burning in the bosom” and authenticity of spiritual experience
• [10:12] – Example of “dead faith,” fruit of the Spirit as evidence of genuine faith
• [11:41] – Discussion on rationality vs. warrant (Plantinga)
• [18:15] – Magisterial vs. ministerial use of reason
• [19:35] – Dual warrant: arguments/evidence and Holy Spirit
• [21:27] – Questions: What leads people to different uses of reason? Role of Holy Spirit
• [24:57] – Romans 2 and the law written on the heart; moral argument for God
• [28:24] – Counterfeit experiences in other faiths (Islam, Mormonism)
• [30:29] – The difference between “know” and “believe”; certainty and warrant
• [33:37] – Faith vs. reason: are they divorced?
• [35:04] – The importance of ministerial witnessing and love in faith-sharing

---

Conclusion

Dr. Craig’s discussion centers on the primacy of the Holy Spirit’s self-authenticating witness as the foundation of Christian belief—both for rationality and warrant—while also highlighting a significant, supportive role for evidence and arguments (dual warrant). The conversation navigates tough objections (religious experience in other faiths, dead faith, the problem of evil), and consistently emphasizes that a living faith must show fruit and be rooted in the Holy Spirit’s work, even as reason plays its “ministerial” supporting role.

Theological and philosophical depth, scriptural references, and practical implications make this a rich exploration for any listener interested in the grounds of Christian faith.

---

Transcript

[A]

Welcome to Defenders, the teaching class of Dr. William Lane Craig. Today An Excursus on Natural Theology, Part 3. For more resources from Dr. Craig, go to reasonablefaith.org Last time we were together, I argued that for the Christian believer, belief in God and the great truths of the Gospel are properly basic beliefs which are grounded in the inner witness of God's Holy Spirit. Now, if that's the case for the believer, what about for the unbeliever? What is the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of an unbeliever? The unbeliever is not regenerate and therefore is not indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and therefore does not experience the witness of the Holy Spirit to the truth of the Christian faith. And as we Christians do. So since the unbeliever is bereft of the Holy Spirit, does this mean that he has to rely on arguments and evidence in order to convince him that Christianity is true? Well, I think the answer is no, not at all. According to the Scripture, God has a special ministry of the Holy Spirit which is geared to the needs of the unbeliever in particular. And Jesus describes this ministry in John, chapter 16, verses 7 to 11. John, chapter 16, verses 7to11. Jesus says, it is to your advantage that I go away. For if I do not go away, the counselor will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment concerning sin, because they do not believe in me concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. Now notice that here Jesus is addressing the ministry of the Holy Spirit not to the church, but to the world. And he is talking about people who, as he says, do not believe in me. And the ministry of the Holy Spirit that is here described is threefold. He convicts the unbeliever of his own sin, secondly, of God's righteousness, and thirdly, of his condemnation before God. And the unbeliever who is so convicted can therefore be said to know such truths as God exists, I am guilty before God, and so forth. Now this is the way it had to be. Because if it weren't for the work of the Holy Spirit, no one would ever become a Christian. According to Paul, natural man, left to himself does not seek God. Romans 3, verses 10 and 11. None is righteous. No, not one. No one understands. No one seeks for God. Romans 3, 10, 11. Unregenerate man, Paul says, cannot understand spiritual things. First Corinthians 2:14. The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. First Corinthians 2:14 the unregenerate man is hostile to God. Romans 8:7. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law. Indeed it cannot. Romans 8:7. As Jesus said, men love darkness rather than light. So left to himself, unregenerate natural man would never come to God. The fact that we do find people who are seeking God and who are ready to receive Christ when we share the Gospel with them is evidence that the Holy Spirit has already been at work in their lives, convicting them and drawing them to him. As Jesus says in John 6:44, no one comes to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. John 6:44. So when a person refuses to come to Christ, it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties with the faith at root. He refuses to come because he willingly ignores and and rejects the drawing of God's Holy Spirit on his heart. Now, this convicting power and drawing of the Holy Spirit may take time, it may take years in order for the unbeliever to finally come to Christ. Nevertheless, no one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments or evidence. He fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God. But anyone who does respond to the drawing of God's Spirit with an open mind and an open heart, can know with assurance that Christianity is true because God's Spirit will convict him eventually that it is true. Listen to the words of Jesus in John 7, 16 and 17. John chapter 7, verses 16 and 17, I think two of the most remarkable verses in the New Testament. Jesus said, my teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If any man's will is to do his will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I'm speaking on my own authority here. Jesus said that if anyone is truly seeking God, if his will is to do God's will, then he'll know that this teaching is from God or that Jesus, just speaking on his own opinion. So Jesus is affirming here that if anyone truly wants God's will, is truly seeking God, then he will come to know that Jesus teaching truly is from God. So then I think for the unbeliever as well as for the believer. It is the testimony of God's spirit that ultimately assures him of the truth of Christianity. The unbeliever who is truly seeking God will be convinced of the truth of the Christian message. Is there any discussion about this role of the Holy Spirit in. In grounding belief in God and the great things of the Gospel in a properly basic way?

[B]

This is more just really a comment I read years ago when I first became a Christian in 2006, a book by Dinesh D' Souza called what's so Great About Christianity? And in that book, he was talking about kind of this idea of people looking at evidence and trying to get to God and like, can you argue your way to God? Or whatever? And he said, for most people. Most people don't believe in God because of. Most people just either know that Christianity is true through the witness of the Holy Spirit and that kind of deal. And he said, if you think about it, if you had to argue your way to God, then getting to heaven would be like getting into Harvard. You'd have to be a certain intellectual, smart person in order for God to go okay. And Dinesh d' Souza said, God tends to like more humble folk than us. Like, intellectual, you know, whatever I thought was a really insightful idea.

[A]

Yeah, I agree with you, Kevin. If God were to just abandon us to our own intelligence and ingenuity to work out whether or not he exists, he would be a very cruel God indeed. But God loves us. He loves people. And so by His Holy Spirit, he seeks to draw them to Himself. Now, that doesn't mean, as we'll see, that there aren't evidence and arguments sufficient for knowing the truth of Christianity. But it is to say that they're not necessary and that a loving God can bring people to a knowledge of himself apart from argument, if that needs to be the case, yes. Don.

[C]

Bill, we have been visited in our home by the Mormons. And they sit down and the thing they say over and over again is, I can feel it in my heart. I can feel it in my heart. And how do you explain that? I mean, are they. Is it indigestion or.

[A]

I'll say something more about this, Don. That question was asked last week as well, and I put people off because this is a major objection that we need to deal with. But what I would simply say in a nutshell is this, is that spurious claims to a witness of the Holy Spirit do nothing to undermine logically the authenticity of a true claim to the Holy Spirit. Just because someone falsely claims to know something by the burning of the bosom or an immediate experience of God doesn't mean that a person who has the genuine article is therefore unwarranted in what he believes. And I think that's sufficient to undermine that objection. But we'll say more about it when we get to it.

[C]

Okay. One more thing. When we were in San Francisco, before I was a Christian, they had a church out there, Glide Memorial, that was an incredible ministry to the street people and the drug dealers and the prostitutes and all of the gang members showed up on Sunday morning and they danced around and they sung the songs and they felt great. They left the church, went right back out onto the street and did their same things all over again. That's a terrible way. Or at the time, it was a terrible way for me to see Christianity. I just said, wow, this is really neat. You can just do whatever you want as long as you go on Sunday morning and sing.

[A]

Yeah. That's what James calls the a dead faith, a faith without works. It doesn't have any fruit in a person's life. And it's not enough just to go to church for emotional experiences. It needs to manifest itself in your life. If it's a genuine witness of the Holy Spirit that you've received, then you will bear the fruit of the Spirit, right? Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, self control. These are the fruit of the life of a person who is genuinely indwelt and filled with the Holy Spirit. Alright? Now, I've argued that belief in God and the truths of the Gospel are properly basic, both for the believer and for the unbeliever alike, grounded in the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Now, does this mean that it is simply rational to believe in God and Christianity, or does it mean that this belief is actually warranted? Now, what's the difference between these? Plantinga distinguishes rationality and warrant. He argues that belief in God is not merely rational for someone on the basis of the Spirit's witness, but that it is actually warranted for them so that they can know that God exists. A belief can be rational even though it's in fact false. When we say that a belief is rational, we mean either that the person doesn't violate any epistemological duty in believing that he's within his epistemological rights in believing that. Or we mean that he exhibits no defect in his cognitive structure, he's not doing anything wrong or misshapen with regard to his system of beliefs. And it's clear that a belief could be rational in that sense and yet be false. For example, if you were to meet someone for the first time and he were to say to you, hello, my name is Mark, I would be rational to believe that his name is Mark, but it's possible that it's not Mark. He might be lying for some reason. To me, I'm not saying you are Mark, but it could be some other name. And so I would be rational in believing what turns out to be a false belief. So being properly basic merely enough to be rational isn't really enough. What we want to know is, is this belief warranted for us in such a way that we can be said to actually have knowledge of the existence of God and of Christianity's truth? And in planting his view we do have warrant and not merely rationality. For Plantinga, the inner witness of the Holy Spirit is the close analog of a cognitive faculty and that we have. And in that sense it is a belief forming mechanism which can be reliable. And he thinks that the beliefs formed by this mechanism meet the conditions for being warranted. And therefore he would say that we can know the truths of the gospel through the witness of the Holy Spirit, so that these are warranted for us. We have genuine knowledge of the truth, that of the existence of God and the great things of the Gospel. Now, because we know the great truths of the Gospel through the Holy Spirit's work, it follows that you don't need to have any evidence for them. Rather they are properly basic for us both with respect to rationality and with respect to warrant. And so Plantinga affirms, and I quote, that according to his theory, the central truths of the Gospel are self authenticating. That is to say, they do not get their evidence or warrant by means of being believed on the evidential basis of other propositions. Now I've argued that this is in accord with New Testament teaching that for the believer and the unbeliever alike, it is the self authenticating work of the Holy Spirit that supplies knowledge of Christianity's truth. So I would agree with planting that belief in the God of the Bible is a properly basic belief. And I would simply emphasize that it is the testimony of the Holy Spirit that grounds this belief and therefore makes it properly basic. And because this belief is is formed in response to God's own witness, God's own self disclosure via the witness of the Holy Spirit, it doesn't need any sort of external authentication. It's not merely rational for us to believe what God says, but it constitutes knowledge. We actually have knowledge of Christianity's truth through the witness of the Holy Spirit. So what then is the role of argument and evidence in knowing Christianity's truth? Well, I've already said that the fundamental way in which we know the truth of Christianity is through the self authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit. And therefore the only role that's left for argument and evidence to play is a subsidiary role. And here I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and the ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial and the ministerial uses of reason. What are these? The magisterial role of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the Gospel like a magistrate and judges its truth or falsity on the basis of argument and evidence. By contrast, the ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the Gospel message. And in light of the Holy Spirit's witness, I would say that only the ministerial use of reason is legitimate. Philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology. Reason is a God given tool to help us better understand and defend our faith. As St. Anselm put it, ours is a faith that seeks understanding. So a person who knows that Christianity is true on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit may also have a sound apologetic which reinforces for him the truth of what the Holy Spirit says. So we can imagine a person who has both the witness of the Holy Spirit and good arguments from natural theology and Christian evidences for the great truths of the Gospel, so that this person can be said to have a kind of dual warrant for the truth of his Christian beliefs. Such a person is doubly warranted in his Christian belief in the sense that he has two sources of warrant for what he believes which are independent of each other. And I think you can see there could be great advantages to having this sort of dual warrant for your Christian beliefs, having sound arguments for the existence of God and evidence for the reliability of the Gospels in addition to the Holy Spirit's witness in your life could increase your confidence in the truth of Christian truth claims and on planting his theory at least that would mean that you have then greater warrant for what you believe as a result of these arguments and evidence as well as the Holy Spirit's witness. And greater warrant then in turn could lead, for example, an unbeliever to come to faith more readily when he sees this great warrant that Christianity has. Or it could inspire a believer to share his faith more boldly because he has greater warrant for what he believes and therefore more confidence. Moreover, the availability of independent warrant for Christian truth claims which are apart from the work of the Holy Spirit might prompt an unbeliever to be more open to the drawing of the Holy Spirit when he hears the Gospel. He might not come to Christ because of the arguments he hears, but nevertheless these might make him more open to responding to the Holy Spirit when the Spirit bears witness with his heart. Or in the case of the believer, having independent arguments and evidence could give the believer support during times of spiritual dryness or doubt, when he's struggling in his Christian life and the witness of the Holy Spirit seems eclipsed, then having the independent warrant could shore up his faith when going through these times of doubt or struggle. And I'm sure you could think of many, many other ways in which this sort of dual warrant would be of great benefit in the Christian life. So I would argue that as Christians we have in the work of the Holy Spirit and in the arguments of natural theology and Christian evidence of dual warrant for the truth of our Christian beliefs, so that we can be said to know these things via these two sources of warrant. Now, are there any questions or any discussion about these points? Taewon?

[D]

Dr. Craig, what do you think that make a person to hold either magisterial use of reason or or ministerial use of reason?

[A]

What would make a person hold to either one?

[D]

Yeah, Does Holy Spirit have any effect in changing their basis or.

[A]

Well, I would say that a person who holds to the magisterial view of reason may not have reflected sufficiently upon the data of the New Testament about how we can come to know Christian truths through the witness of the Holy Spirit and that that spirit can be so powerful that it can even overcome objections and defeaters of the Christian belief. So I'm persuaded that what I've said is right in line with New Testament teaching. And my belief that Luther was right in thinking that the ministerial use of reason is correct is that. Kayvon I just can't imagine any circumstances under which a person would be justified in apostatizing. I can't imagine any circumstances in which a person would find himself where the rational thing for him to do, the thing that he should do, is to reject Jesus Christ out of his life and revert back to being a non Christian again. Apostasy seems to me is an unforgivable sin. And it could only be unforgivable if a person could never be justified in doing it. And yet on a magisterial view of reason, one can easily imagine circumstances in which believers might find themselves where they don't know the answers to the object and the arguments that are brought against them. And so if they just followed the arguments in evidence, they should deconvert, they should apostatize. And to my mind, that's just unconscionable. There must be, I think there's got to be some other warrant that would enable the person justifiably to persevere in his faith despite his inability to answer the objection.

[D]

Would you say that at the decision of accepting Christ make such a shift, would you say that that's what that decision does to a person when they actually shift from magistrated reuse of reason into a ministry?

[A]

I don't think so, Tehuan, as I've argued, I think also for the unbeliever, ultimately the reason an unbeliever fails to come to God is because he willingly rejects and ignores the drawing of God's Holy Spirit on his heart. Otherwise, an unbeliever like Bertrand Russell say might be able to stand before God on the judgment day. And Russell was actually asked this by a woman, she said, what would you say if you found yourself standing before God on the judgment day? And Russell replied, I would say not enough evidence. God, not enough evidence. Well, some people might be able to be justified in saying that if there were no witness of the Holy Spirit. Imagine somebody raised in Soviet Russia who never had a chance to hear the gospel and was indoctrinated with Marxist propaganda at the university. Such a person might find himself in that sort of of situation. And yet I don't think again on the New Testament anybody would ever be justified in rejecting Jesus Christ. Nobody would be able to stand before God on the judgment day and excuse his unbelief by saying, well, there wasn't enough evidence. I think that it is the witness of the Holy Spirit that is the, the fundamental factor in how we know Christianity to be true. And even people who have been given no good reason to believe and persuasive reasons to disbelieve are still ultimately accountable before God because the reason that they do not believe is ultimately because they reject and ignore God's own testimony to the truth of the Gospel. Jim, how does the pen passage in Romans 2 about God's law written on one's heart tie in with this? Yes. Well, let's look at that passage. Romans chapter 2, verse 14. When Gentiles who do not have the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness. And their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. I take it that what Paul is teaching here, Jim, is that the demands of God's moral law are also properly basic and that people have an inherent knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil. So that the religious relativist or nihilist who thinks that there are no objective moral values and duties is flouting this properly basic belief which is written on his heart by God. So I don't think that the passage is teaching that belief in God is properly basic, but I do think that the passage you cited is teaching that a knowledge of fundamental good and evil, right and wrong, is written on our hearts is properly basic, and that therefore we're accountable before God for our failure to live up to the demands of the moral law. So that would provide a nice analogy, perhaps, to belief in God as properly basic. But wouldn't there have to be a basis, a standard for the right and wrong? Yes, Jim, absolutely. And that is why I would argue for the existence of God on the basis of objective moral values and duties. And what I would say is something like this, objective moral values and duties exist. Second, if God did not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist. 3 Therefore, God exists. And I think that's a good moral argument for God's existence. And the first premise, that there are objective moral values and duties, I would say, is a properly basic belief that is grounded in our moral experience.

[E]

Drew, I wonder how you employ this when you are debating against a pious member of another religion. I mean, Shabir Ali, for example, himself at the admitted he refused to use reason or evidence magisterially against the Quran. Remember, when he talks about Jesus, he says, I start with the Koran, and you criticize him for doing that.

[A]

Did I?

[E]

Yeah, yeah. Oh, I start with the Quran. That's not how, you know, proper scholarship is done.

[A]

Ah, okay, right. Because we were debating on historical questions. Yes, but I think that the Muslim has every right to claim that his belief is properly basic and is in the witness of Allah in his heart. But I think he's just mistaken. As I was saying to Don about the Mormon. So this is getting back to the same question again. About what? About people who falsely pretend to a witness of the Spirit.

[E]

I'm sort of wondering how you come up with that distinction. How do we decide which system is right without using reason magisterially or using evidence magisterially to decide between this?

[A]

Well, the very point of Calling it self authenticating. Drew is that for the person who has the genuine authentic witness of the Holy Spirit, it authenticates itself. He doesn't need arguments or reason for the person who really has it, he knows he has it. It's the person who have it who has a false counterfeit religious experience, who is in trouble and whose confidence may be shaken when we present arguments and evidence against his view. And that will be the hope is that because we know he doesn't really have an authentic witness of the Holy Spirit to the truth of Mormonism or Islam, that when we share these arguments and evidence against Mormon, Mormonism and Islam, that they may penetrate and shake his confidence and he may lose his confidence in this false religion to which he adheres.

[C]

Steve, it seems like we sometimes use the word know and believe interchangeably and seems that we can believe without doubt. But that's different than knowing, right?

[A]

That's right. So, Steve. So that's right. That is. I'm glad you brought this up. When my son was 17 year old, was 17 years old, he was certain about a lot of things, trust me, dad, he'd say, and they were wrong. He had believe without doubt, but that didn't mean that he knew those things. So certainty is neither a sufficient condition for knowledge nor a necessary condition for knowledge. You can know things without being certain of them and you can be certain of falsehoods that you don't really know. So what converts belief, true belief? Say you have a true belief. What converts that true belief into knowledge? Well, it is this elusive quality that Planica calls warrant. If the belief is in some way warranted for you insufficient measure, then you can be said to know that. But do not equate the word knowing with being certain of something. Certainty is a psychological property that is neither necessary nor sufficient for knowledge.

[C]

Okay, so we walk by faith and not by sight says. Doesn't that imply that we don't really know? I mean.

[A]

Well, no, no. That was mentioned in the morning service today and made me reflect on that as the pastor was talking about walking by faith and not by sight. And it seemed to me that a good example of the Christian life walking by faith and not by sight would be dealing with evils and disasters and suffering that come into our lives for which we see no sufficient reason. When something horrible happens to you, you back out of your driveway and accidentally run over your little daughter that was playing behind the car and you never saw her horrible things like that that happen and you can see no good reason for that at all. Those are Circumstances in which, like Job, I think we walk by faith and not by sight. We don't see God's morally justifying reasons for allowing such things, but we trust him as we go through those. Now, is that a blind faith? No, because we have good reasons to believe that God exists. We have the witness of the Holy Spirit. We have the arguments of natural theology. We are warranted in believing that God exists and, and that he loves us and has our best interests in heart. So when we see things like these terrible catastrophes happening, it's in those kind of circumstances that we need to walk by faith, not by sight. Does that make sense?

[C]

Yeah, sure.

[A]

Okay. Any other comment?

[E]

In saying things like there could never be a reason why you would ever deconvert or that, or that these experiences are enough and that no one ever gets into heaven through evidence, are we divorcing faith from reason?

[A]

Oh no, I didn't say that though, Eric. I never said that. Nobody gets into faith through evidence. I never said that. What I said was that it's not necessary to have this warrant because you have the warrant of the Holy Spirit. So, so you can get into heaven without argument and evidence, but you can get into heaven through the arguments and evidence too, if they lead you to put your faith in Christ. So what I said before again was that no one could ever justifiably apostatize or justifiably resist until the end of his life believing in God. Because any intellectual difficulties or problems that he might have, I would say will simply be overcome by the witness of the Holy Spirit. Again, think of what Jesus said. If any man's will is to do God's will, then he will know whether my teaching is from God. Okay, some other comments. Steve over here has a remark just

[F]

remind us that ministerial witnessing is important to us and our growth. If you look at Revelation 12:10 through 11, and the basic part is for they conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their own testimony. And so as we witness with love ministering God, we open ourselves up and God is able to show us deeper insight into His Word. You know, now there's time for managerial arguments to defend the position in the earth. But for witnessing and saving others, you have to have love for them. And that actually ministers to you. He gives you deeper insight, shows you firmer truth, shows you what to look at next. And so it's important to have both. As far as everybody haven't properly basic yet. God holds everybody accountable to know what they have in their testimony. So it's up to us to witness. And then the Holy Spirit is stronger than anybody else's witness. So what they're testifying to is spirit. Beings that are inserting themselves, they're the idols. That's what God came to do away with.

[A]

I think Steve is making a good point. Don't you believe that the Holy Spirit is more powerful and can overcome the false testimony that a Muslim experiences to the truth of the Kagan or Allah? Do you really think that God is so weak that he can't overcome that sort of psychological experience? I think he can.

[F]

And they'll feel conviction when you witness to them and you tell them now, just accept it. You know, that's God. And don't discount it because he's telling you you've got error in your way. Yeah, that's rejecting the Holy Spirit.

[A]

The role of the Holy Spirit, remember, is to convict those who do not believe in me of sin and righteousness and judgment. So share your faith. Trusting the Holy Spirit to secretly be at work.

[F]

And you have to do it with love. And they have to see it or else they will never trust in that conviction. That is from love.

[A]

Yeah, that's right. That's right. Okay, well, good. Now, what we will talk about next time is this. Now, long delayed objection about defeaters. What about the person who has the witness of the Holy Spirit in his heart but encounters objections or arguments against his faith which he cannot answer? How do we deal with the rationality and the warrant of belief in Christianity in that kind of difficult circumstance? That's the question we'll take up next Sunday. The copyright for the content of this recording is held by Dr. William Lane Craig. For more go to reasonablefaith.

[F]

Org.