William Lane Craig (professor of philosophy at Houston Baptist University and research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology [Biola University]) is held up by many as a great apologist for Christianity. But the fact is, he represents one of the major problems with much of the church and most Christian institutions.
Watch his short video and see his pseudo-intellectual arrogance that mocks God and his Word and instead exalts the word of fallible, sinful man above God’s holy, infallible Word. He’s destructive to the church and will have to give account to God for his blatant compromise of God’s Word and for leading many astray.
Craig claims a genre analysis indicates Genesis chapters 1-11 are not literal and historical. That’s totally his opinion based on nothing in the Bible. If he had never heard of evolution, he would never think such a thing about the Genesis text. His main thrust is to compromise the pagan religion of evolution/millions of years with God’s Word. He is helping atheists undermine the Word of God and capture the minds of generations of people.
“Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” declares the LORD” (Jeremiah 23:1).
At least Craig is trying to let the evidence lead him to the most accurate position possible, while Ken has continuously ignored mountains of evidence in support of evolutionary theory.
Its funny Ken accuses Craig of misleading those who listen to him, when a similar charge has been leveled against him by flat-earth Christians. One has to wonder why Ken has held on to the “fallible” claim of man that the earth is round, even though flat-earthers think he is twisting the scriptures to fit the science.
Reading Ken Ham say this of Bill Craig I had to check if I had just come out of a coma and it was april 1st. Nope, it’s december and Ken Ham is saying that.
Now if that isn’t a sign of impending Ragnarok™, I don’t know what is. I expect to see news headlines that Thor will be consumed by Fenris any second now.
Read Ham’s quote and simply replace WLC with “Ken Ham” and it suddenly makes a lot more sense though it would still be arrogant and inappropriate.
Modifying your interpretation of scripture to fit with science isn’t necessarily bad. If Ken had never heard of biology, he would never have thought that whales aren’t fishes (I was so surprised to learn that whales aren’t fishes back in secondary school, that I nearly denied it).
A flat-earther Christian could equally accuse Ken, by saying:
If he had never heard of a globe earth, he would never think scripture even allowed that interpretation.
My thought is the WLC probably doesn’t know many YECs that he would assume the criticism would be to accuse him of anti-supernaturalism. That’s bizarre. Not something I would have thought of at all.
But I think his positions are going to surprise many and be very controversial. This is only the start. I’m also surprised, given I heard him talk about his books and he said his cosmological argument is scientifically out of date. Then why take this on, if he’s been burned on science before?
Proverbs 11:14: Where there is no counsel, the people fall; But in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
1 Corinthians 2:
And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the [a]testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of [b]human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
I have watched several Craig debates wherein he argues for the existence of God using the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I don’t think he has ever been burned on science. If memory serves me right, he tries to defend the argument that the universe had a beginning and that beginning was God. Some physicists, I think, hold this view (with or without God as the cause), while others posit an eternal universe. To argue for a beginning, Craig relies on “Aristotelian physics” which is scientifically out-of-date, but with regards to whether the universe had a beginning or not, he hasn’t been burned because no one knows the answer. I stand to be corrected if I inaccurately characterized Craig’s position.
@deuteroKJ are there many scholars who refer to the beginning of Genesis until Abraham as a genre of mytho-history? I googled “mytho-history genre” because I wasn’t familiar with it. Most of the top links were related to WLC, even a Peaceful Science link. I got to watching one of his videos in a series. He references T. Jacobsen.
I’m not finding it very satisfying, big surprise to no one. The core of his argument seems to be that the genealogies show Genesis 1-11 must have a historical reference but they are too unbelievable or too perfect (10 generations) to be actual history.
Not that exact label, but yes many (even evangelical) scholars land somewhere in that neighborhood. That is, they see an historical core but a style a precision that doesn’t read like a journalistic account. I highly recommend (the quite conservative) Jack Collins’ Reading Genesis Well, which focuses on Gen 1-11.
I think we have all modified our readings to an extent due to science. When you read scriptures that suggest geocentrism or flat-earth, I bet you take the stance of science and reinterpret them to fit with it.
There was a debate Craig had Ayala and he was defending intelligent design. He even brought up Behe during the discussion. If Craig was an ID proponent (Behe-style not yours), then its likely he no longer holds to such arguments after several interactions with you.
Being a member of that society doesn’t necessarily mean he still accepts its claims, but you could be right anyway. It would be nice if he clarifies his current stance on the subject.
I got to watching one of his videos in a series. He references T. Jacobsen.