Doctrine of Salvation Part 13: Assessment of Competing Views of Justification

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 and "shelter-in-place" recommendations, Dr. Craig gives this lecture from the safety of his home office.

"Defenders" is Dr. William Lane Craig's weekly Sunday school class on Christian doctrine and apologetics. This video is part 13 of his locus on the Doctrine of Salvation.

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

[vaderetro]

Very well explained. Thank you, Dr Craig.

[reydemayo]

Godbless Dr. Lane Craig a very helpful analogy to Support the View of Justification is Similar in legal marriage Status by public pronouncement in the Ceremony so therefore both now married in the eyes of the Law before they are Single.
May the Lord Give you more Strengh.

[rudya.hernandez]

I read Luke 17:7-10 and kind of read into it like this "new perspective".

[SirKnight]

Incorrect. It was not Palestine until over 100 years after Christ

[cmac]

I don't understand. At what point, in the Protestant view, is someone considered Justified? That's the crux of the problem. They say once you're declared Justified it's once and for all. You can never lose it. But if anyone sins and go against the commandments of Jesus they conveniently say "well, they weren't really Justified, it was a fake." Where does the bible say the apostles' sins weren't real sins? Why did Jesus and the apostles warn so strongly against sins? Why if all they had to say was "Accept Jesus as Lord and Savior." No. There's no once justified always Justified. It makes no sense. If you're not a faithful disciple you're not justified-that means it's a life long process. Faith is not a moment. You're confusing the Justification to be purely a legal term.

[theoskeptomai]

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._*

And here is the evidence as to why I currently  hold to such a position.

1. I personally have never observed a god.
2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god.
3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists.
5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises.
6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable.

ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god.

I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*

I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

[anthonycalipjo]

Wrong concept again and again. You are declared because God pardoned, yes. Catholics also believe and accept that. This is what really happened and must happened. You are a sinner, found guilty, God forgive or pardoned you, you are cleared then you died immediately, then you go to heaven. Approved. The problem with your theory Craig is that after being pardoned, you didn't die immediately, and since you continue to live, you keep on sinning mate, and at the end of your life what do you expect God will do, another pardon? The knowledge that you aquired clouded your judgement that's why you don't understand what is the extent of justification...👍🙏👍 actually, during Jesus time, a woman prostitute or something, the Lord forgive her sins and right on the spot, she was justified, declared righteous but it didn't end there. Jesus said, GO AND SIN NO MORE.. that is the missing part and that void your claim....