Apologist William Lane Craig Denies Original Sin: ‘infants and the mentally retarded are not born sinful’
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all people, because all sinned.” Romans 5:12
Christian apologist William Lane Craig has denied the theological belief of original sin in a recently released video, claiming that “infants and the mentally retarded are not born sinful and therefore have no sin that needs to be pardoned or forgiven.”
Frequently viewed as evangelicalism’s foremost Christian apologist, William Lane Craig’s name is most often associated with his ministry organization Reasonable Faith, the name of his most famous book and also weekly podcast. We recently covered him after he made a number of startling claims about the origin of Adam and the nature of the bible, in our posts:
Apologist William Craig Denies Genesis 1-11: Says Adam was Caveman that Lived 750,000 Years Ago
William Lane Craig Mockingly Laughs at Thought of Talking Snake, Literal Adam
William Lane Craig Says Refusing to Consider Neanderthals the same as Homo Sapiens is ‘Dehumanizing’ and ‘Racist’
William Lane Craig Says Abortion Doesn’t Harm Babies + Confers ‘A Great Good’ Upon Them
In a recent video talking about the concept of original sin, Craig offers:
If you believe with Roman Catholics and Reformed and Lutheran theologians that Adam’s sin and guilt is imputed to every individual human being descended from Adam, then infants and the mentally disabled are going to also need salvation to be applied to them in some way because they carry the guilt of Adam’s sin.
On the other hand, if like me, you’re not persuaded that this doctrine is biblical, then infants and the mentally retarded are not born sinful and therefore have no sin that needs to be pardoned or forgiven.
And I think this is in accord with Jesus’ attitude toward children. When you look at how Jesus regarded children, he said, “unless you become like a little child you will not see the kingdom of God. But these children who have faith in me, such is the kingdom of God.”
So he, I think, clearly believed that these little children were saved, were the recipients of God’s salvation. And that would make much better sense than I think saying that they were all born vile and corrupted sinners.
About Author
Interesting that he jumps from infants to children, which are not necessarily the same thing, as not all children are infants. The children Christ spoke of certainly were not infants. So, what is Craig teaching then? That people are universally saved until some point after childhood? That Adam’s sin is not imputed until that point? That we are born saved but lose that salvation at a later time? He is inventing some strange doctrines, indeed.