Welcome back to Dennis Popery. I'm Joe Hesheimer. This is part two of a two-part series responding to William Lane Craig's arguments against the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So if you haven't seen part one yet, you can check that out in the link in the description. But last week, I was looking at his biblical case against the Eucharist. Today, I'm looking at his case against the Eucharist on the basis of church history. Now, as many of you may know, Dr. William Lane Craig has been something of a personal hero to me,

as a wonderful apologist in defense of Christianity.

But unfortunately, on topics like the Eucharist, I think he's just woefully misinformed.

Now, part of his objection to the Eucharist involves philosophical arguments against transubstantiation, as he understands

it. You know, he's pretty upfront about the fact that he just finds this whole teaching pretty weird.

This is an incredibly, incredibly complex and reticulate doctrine that has been well thought through by people like Thomas Aquinas,

but I think is truly bizarre.

Rather than diving deep into the philosophical aspects of transubstantiation,

I thought it might be worth just pointing a few things out at the outset.

First, both Catholics and Protestants are going to agree. The God of the

universe entered history as a baby boy born of a virgin, a male whose only biological parent

is a female. And this god man announces to the world in stark terms that we're meant to

eat his flesh and drink his blood, whatever that means. I think it's fair to say that the whole thing is truly bizarre in the sense of being rather

unusual and unexpected.

Now, that's true, however you make sense of the biblical data.

And whatever you might say of the Catholic view, the fact that 2,000 years of brilliant

theologians like Thomas Aquinas and Holy Saints have held to it,

should at least encourage a hint of intellectual humility and curiosity.

Is it possible that they see something that you don't?

So bearing that in mind, I would suggest that the boldest arguments that Craig makes

are actually a series of radical, and I'm going to say unsupportable claims he makes about the

Eucharist and Church history. Now, if you're looking for something that is supportable,

...