Tag Archives: William Lane Craig

Wat het Julius Malema en Sakkie Spangeberg in gemeen?

Bill (William Lane) Craig het uiteindelik terug gerapporteer op hy en Licona se debat teen die liberale* Jesus Seminaar teoloë Sakkie Spangeberg en Hansie Wolmerans.

Nou vra jy dalk hoekom debatte soos hierdie saakmaak? Is dit nie maar net ‘n sinlose getwis oor woorde nie? As jy dit vra, moet jy in die eerste plek verstaan dat hierdie nie soos jou gewone skooldebat is nie. Craig debatteer nie om sy mening teenoor iemand anders se mening te stel nie, maar om mense op feite en logiese argumente wat na God/ Christus dui te wys. Sy debatte word dikwels afgesluit met ‘n uitnodiging om Christus aan te neem, en soms kry hy talle bekeerlinge.

Wat meer is, hy kry met debat talle luisteraars wat nie andersins na ‘n Christenspreker sal luister nie. Sal ‘n ongelowige kom luister na ‘n teoloog wat ‘n praatjie gee “Waarom ek glo Jesus het opgestaan”? Selfs ‘n gelowige soos ek sal nie uit my pad gaan daarvoor nie. Aan die ander kant, wat is die kans dat ‘n ongelowige, veral van die soort wie se skeptisisme van liberale teoloë aan universiteite kom, na ‘n “Het die opstanding werklik gebeur?” debat sal gaan luister? Veral as dit tussen sy gunsteling skeptiese teoloog , en ‘n man wat die hele pad van Amerika af kom net om die opstanding te verdedig, is? En as die Amerikaner dan die liberale teoloog se agterent skop, oor die geskiedenis-feite duidelik aan die Amerikaner se kant is, dan kan onse skeptikus ook iets leer. Hierdie soort debatte is dan bedoel vir die mens wie se geloof ondermyn word deur kamma-intelligente anti-geloofspraatjies. En vir die mens(meeste van ons!) wie se geloof versterk sal word as hy sien dat sy geloof op feite gegrond is.

 Hier is wat Craig op sy webblad daaroor sê: (Vetdruk myne)

 Debate with Spangenberg and Wolmarans

William Lane Craig

In the debate Mike and I defended two contentions: (1) The texts of the New Testament teach that Jesus’ resurrection was a physical, historical event; and (2) There’s no good reason to deny this traditional understanding of the texts.

In my opening speech I defended our first contention, and we planned that Mike would defend our second contention in response to any criticisms that Spangenberg might offer in his opening speech. Well, to our shock Spangenberg got up and rambled on about irrelevancies and never got around to saying anything about the question under debate, so that poor Mike had virtually nothing to respond to! So he had to reply to criticisms that Spangenberg has offered in his published work, even though he didn’t bring them up in the debate. Wolmarans then got up and, of all things, defended the mythological view of Jesus!** (In my nearly 30 years of debate experience with scholars like Crossan, Borg, Lüdemann, Ehrman, et al., I have never encountered anyone who defends this line, and both of my opponents in South Africa espouse this silliness!)

In my rebuttal I explained why this view of Christian origins has been eclipsed among New Testament scholars and then reviewed some of the evidence for the historicity of the events of Easter. A very angry Spangenberg then came to the podium and began to rail against apartheid and Christianity’s connection to it. It was unbelievable. Mike then explained that all the points raised by Prof. Spangenberg, though important and interesting in and of themselves, were just one red herring after another in the context of the debate that night. Then he closed with a very personal appeal to the Christians of South Africa not to be fooled by the false claims and superficial arguments (what arguments?) of those in the New Reformation movement. Wolmarans closed out the debate by telling a rambling and sentimental story about a baker and the parents of a little boy killed in a car accident. (I know–nobody else understood its relevance either.)

Die debat word hier, hier, en hier bespreek deur mense wat daar was. Hier is wat Mike Licona oor die debat te sê gehad het. Videos van Craig en Licona se lesings en debatte sal binnekort by AntWoord beskikbaar wees. Kontak hulle by antwoorde@yahoo.com as jy belang stel.

Nou vra jy my dalk, wat hét Julius Malema en Sakkie Spangeberg in gemeen? Lees hier vir die ooreenkoms wat Thenack sien.

————-

Ander gedagte-paadjies hieroor

    * “For some extraordinary reason, there is a fixed notion that it is more liberal to disbelieve in miracles than to believe in them. Why, I cannot imagine, nor can anybody tell me.” – G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

    ** Ek was vantevore verbaas en geskok toe dit lyk of George Claassen wonder of Jesus hoegenaamd bestaan het. Nou sien ek dat daar meer mense aan Suid Afrikaanse universiteite is wat nie eers weet van die geskiedkundige konsensus daaroor nie.

Craig/ Hitchens debat oor God se bestaan lok duisende

20090405_110716_DebateTop_300Die geleentheid was uitverkoop. Mense het ure tougestaan om in te kom. Elke ouditorium op die kampus was volgepak, en daar was ‘n web-uitsending na 35 ander Amerikaanse state en 4 ander lande. Waarvan praat ons? ‘n Beroemde sanger? ‘n Sportbyeenkoms?

Nee, ons praat van ’n debat. Tussen Christopher Hitchens (Joernalis en skrywer van God is not great: How religion poisons everything) en William Lane Craig (Professor in Filosofie). En die onderwerp? Dit was “Does God exist?” (En party mense sê dat byna niemand meer in godsdiens belang stel nie!)

Mens kan seker die video koop, maar vir nou moet ek maar tevrede wees met opsommings soos Doug Geivett s’n, Rebecca LuElla Miller s’n, en Wintery Knight s’n.(As jy net een van hierdie wil lees, beveel ek Geivett aan.)

Dit is so dat mense nie vinnig hulle opinie verander in sake soos hierdie nie. Nogtans lyk dit of selfs ongelowiges erken dat Craig gewen het. (En party gelowiges hoop selfs dat hierdie vir Hitchens op die lang duur in bekering se rigting sal help.) Natuurlik het Craig se voorbereiding en debatsvernuf iets met sy oorwinning te doen, maar op die ou end kán hy só ‘n debat wen oor daar bewyse is vir God se bestaan.

En hierdie soort debatte gaan nie net oor die kop nie. Soos Rich Bordner daaroor sê:

The highlight of the debate for me was when Craig made an evangelistic appeal to both Hitchens and the non believers in the audience. Of course, Hitchens wasn’t just gonna bow the knee right there, but this underscores a proper view of apologetics: it is an evangelistic, missionary enterprise.
I frequently hear Christians dismiss apologetical ventures because “its all just arguing about words. You can’t win anyone to Christ with an argument. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. It’s all head and no heart and is totally irrelevant to my life.”
First, I think anyone watching tonight could see Craig’s character and fervent love for the Lord. I’ve seen the same for many Christian philosophers and apologists on the intellectual front lines. They are winsome and attractive ambassadors, as Koukl says. This puts that last objection (it’s all head and no heart) in it’s place.
Secondly, *nothing* in isolation can win someone to Christ without the Spirit, not even love or acts of service. But people are won over to Christ with arguments all the time when they are used by the Holy Spirit. With the Holy Spirit’s help, they are quite potent.

Ja, daar is redes om te glo. En daar is redes om jou lewe aan Jesus oor te gee.