Skip to main content

William Lane Craig: Denying Biblical Truth?

Long ago when I was first becoming serious about apologetics, I followed Dr. Craig. While he could easily dismantle atheism, some things made me uneasy. When it came to ridiculing biblical creationists, I was done. Later, I learned of his belief in molinism and dancing around biblical inerrancy.

Craig has been garnering attention with his book In Quest of the Historical Adam, where he bushwhacks not only biblical creationists, but foundational beliefs in Scripture. He has clearly saddled up to ride with the fifth column of theistic evolution and rejection of biblical authority.

Unsplash / Aaron Burden (modified)
Of course, Craig is not stupid or inexperienced, which makes the downward spiral of his material all the more execrable. Several creationists have analyzed his book and pointed out serious errors in reasoning, and revealing his disdain for the Bible. By my reckoning, to say that Adam was not real when Jesus, Paul, and others in the Bible said he was was, and to relegate Genesis to mythology, is to call them liars. This also impugns the integrity of Scripture — and of God. Would God mix truth with a lie? Not hardly!
In a recent interview discussing his new book In Quest of the Historical Adam, philosopher and Christian apologist William Lane Craig acknowledged his biased assumptions when interpreting how the words of the Bible should be understood. What prejudices his interpretation of words contrary to their plain and normal meaning is his longstanding “great fear” that young-earth creationists are correct that the book of Genesis should be understood as real history.1 Dr. Craig is concerned that this would require a wholesale challenge to all of modern science. However, during the interview Dr. Craig made numerous revealing claims that show that science has nothing to do with why he rejects a historical Genesis.

To read the rest, visit "Biblical Creation and Intellectual Foolishness." For a more in-depth discussion, see "Undermining Scripture Regarding Adam: An Initial Response to William Lane Craig", and for a much more in-depth analysis (which I have not yet read, but I trust Dr. Lisle), click on "The Historical Adam – Part 1: an Introduction" and follow the links to the other installments in the series.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley, Frank Turek, and Bad Theology

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Andy Stanley has been disappointing some people, and causing quite a few to be alarmed by his opposition to the authority of Scripture. (Note: Do not be confused.  Charles  Stanley is his father, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, and heard on In Touch Ministries . I've found most of his teachings to be doctrinally sound, and he upholds the inerrancy and authority of the Bible.) Unfortunately, megachurch director Andy Stanley has been saying things that are destructive to the truth, including recommending the false teaching of theistic evolution. Gray wolf image credit: US National Park Service While shooting from the hip can be a good thing, someone claiming the title of pastor should reign himself in . Stanley was disrespectful of small churches, then apologized later . In another instance, " What  did he just say?", Stanley may have used a very bad word in a sermon. When the segment was legally posted on YouTube

Disappointment with Young Earth Creation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  First, a note for anyone who is curious. The usual format: introduction with some of my thoughts plus links for useful information, excerpts of featured articles, then links to keep reading. I put my name on it and call it an article when I have more to say. This one will be different. I will reference older articles, then add some thoughts that I hope will prove helpful. There is more following the excerpt and link. So, does anyone remember Ken Keathley? Medal image manufactured at Custom Medal Maker Several years ago, Ken Keathley renounced young earth creationism to accept an old earth view. Apparently, he was disappointed by people in the young earth community. No kidding? Taking Friendly Fire This is where I'm going to open up and get personal with both of my readers. Ken Keathley is not the only one who has been disappointed, and in addition, I've been deeply hurt by the young earth community. Things I have posted on social(ist) media have been &qu

Evaluating Truth Claims in Genesis

Some people try to dismiss Genesis as myth containing spiritual truth using elements from the pagan neighbors of the Hebrews. Others say it is misunderstood, as if the Creator of the universe was unable to communicate with us. With closer inspection, we see that Genesis is a historical narrative. Credit: RGBStock /  Billy Frank Alexander The idea that the early chapters of Genesis are mythological should not be accepted by professing Christians, as there are serious problems that result. (One of these is that Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others referred to these chapters as literal history, so by denying this, one is calling them liars!) Also, there are repercussions with the gospel message. Read some classical mythology, then come back to Genesis and see the difference. Myths are vague and have a different flow, but the Bible is precise. Indeed, even the sequence of creation days is specific — a day itself is defined. Interestingly, many translations have in Genesis 1:5 less accurate by us