A recent tweet from William Lane Craig has prompted me to comment on an issue that seems consistent between Dr. Craig, Matt Walsh, and Andy Stanley.
The issue is what I clearly see as nothing more than cheapening the Christian worldview.
Dr. Craig tweeted:
This was in response to a question for clarification. Of which, Dr. Craig clarified.
Matt Walsh and Andy Stanley seem quite on the same page with their approach. Matt Walsh tells us that we shouldn't use the Bible in an argument with atheists or abortionists. And Andy Stanley doesn't like substantiating his claims by saying, "The Bible says".
Stanley and Dr. Craig hold to the view that our faith isn't based on the Bible but on Christ. Dr. Craig teaches that Christians don't need to believe in inerrancy or infallibility. They can just accept a generally reliable, historical text as the manuscripts of the Bible.
Here are the specific problems with all three men and their views:
- Making these kinds of claims cheapens the Christian worldview
- These claims are inconsistent with the Christian worldview. If God spoke, why would we view His Word in anything less than perfect/infallible
- These men are obviously pandering to a particular audience rather than advancing the reality of the Christian worldview
A few points of clarification, obviously Matt Walsh is a Roman Catholic and clearly doesn't have a Biblical worldview anyway.
But Dr. Craig and Andy Stanley should both know better.