William Lane Craig’s interpretation of the creation narrative in Genesis as allegorical or symbolic, rather than a literal six-day creation, presents a significant challenge to traditional biblical understanding. This view can be seen as conflicting with the clear scriptural teaching of a young earth and a literal creation week (Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11). The literal interpretation of Genesis is not just a matter of historical accuracy but foundational to the Christian worldview, affirming God’s authority and role as the Creator (Revelation 4:11, Nehemiah 9:6).
By adopting a theistic evolutionary stance or an old earth perspective, Craig’s interpretation could lead to undermining the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. This is particularly concerning when considering the theological implications for other foundational doctrines. For example, the New Testament repeatedly affirms the literal understanding of Genesis, as seen in Christ’s reference to the creation of man and woman at the beginning of time (Matthew 19:4-6), and Paul’s teachings on the federal headship of Adam in Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. A non-literal approach to Genesis can cast doubt on these essential doctrines, potentially eroding the foundation of Christian theology.
Craig’s view of Adam as a figurative or archetypal figure, rather than a historical person, directly conflicts with the scriptural narrative that portrays Adam as a real, historical individual (Genesis 2-3). This interpretation poses significant theological risks by undermining the doctrine of original sin and the historical foundation for Christ’s redemptive work (Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45).
The historicity of Adam is integral to the Christian understanding of sin and salvation. The Bible presents Adam as the first human, whose disobedience brought sin into the world, necessitating Christ’s atoning sacrifice (Romans 5:12-19). By suggesting that Adam might not be a historical figure, Craig’s position can be seen as weakening the gospel narrative. It disrupts the parallel drawn in Scripture between Adam and Christ, where Christ is portrayed as the “last Adam” who brings redemption and life (1 Corinthians 15:45-49). This allegorical view of Adam may also lead to a diminished understanding of the fall and its impact on humanity, which is foundational to the need for salvation through Jesus Christ.
Craig’s rejection of key Calvinist doctrines, particularly the doctrines of predestination and divine sovereignty, raises significant concerns from a conservative theological standpoint. Calvinism, which emphasizes God’s sovereign choice and predestination in salvation, is deeply rooted in scriptural teachings (Ephesians 1:4-5, Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:15-18). These doctrines underscore the depth of human depravity and the extent of God’s grace in salvation, emphasizing that salvation is entirely the work of God and not based on human merit or decision (Ephesians 2:8-9, John 6:44).
Craig’s position appears to lean towards a synergistic view of salvation, where human free will plays a significant role in the process of being saved. This perspective can be seen as diminishing the biblical teaching of God’s absolute sovereignty and the monergistic nature of salvation (the belief that salvation is entirely the work of God). The Bible consistently attributes the initiation and completion of salvation to God’s sovereign will and action, not to human choice or effort (John 1:12-13, Philippians 1:6). By emphasizing human decision over divine election, Craig’s view could lead to a theological imbalance, undervaluing the doctrine of grace and potentially altering the understanding of the nature of God as sovereign and omnipotent.
Addressing Craig’s approach to biblical inerrancy, it’s important to note that while he affirms the authority of Scripture, his interpretation of certain passages, particularly in Genesis, raises questions about his adherence to a traditional understanding of biblical inerrancy. The doctrine of inerrancy holds that the Bible is without error in all its teachings (Proverbs 30:5, 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Deviations from this principle, especially in interpreting foundational narratives like creation and the fall, can lead to a weakened view of Scripture’s authority and reliability.
Furthermore, Craig’s handling of the problem of evil, while philosophically robust, sometimes seems to downplay the absolute sovereignty and goodness of God. The Bible affirms that God is both sovereign over all things (Isaiah 46:9-10) and inherently good (Psalm 100:5). Any theodicy that appears to compromise these attributes can be problematic from a conservative theological viewpoint. The challenge is to uphold the biblical tension that God is sovereign even over evil and suffering, yet He is never the author of evil and always works for the good of those who love Him (Genesis 50:20, Romans 8:28).
In conclusion, while William Lane Craig’s contributions to Christian apologetics are valuable, his views on creation, Adam, Calvinism, and other theological issues raise concerns from a conservative Christian perspective. These concerns are rooted in the authority of Scripture, the nature of God, the doctrine of salvation, and the reliability of biblical narratives.
Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World - Josh and Sean McDowell
Little Pilgrim's Progress (Illustrated Edition) - Helen L. Taylor