Prominent 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.
While cosplaying as a conservative Christian voice and leader, he is more philosopher than theologian, and his recent spate of biblical pronouncements shows.
Apologist William Lane Craig Says ‘Adam’ Was Genetically Mutated Caveman That Lived 750,000 Years Ago
Apologist William Lane Craig Denies Original Sin: ‘infants and the mentally retarded are not born sinful’
William Lane Craig Says Abortion Doesn’t Harm Babies + Confers ‘A Great Good’ Upon Them
Famous Christian Apologist: Refusing to Consider Neanderthals the same as Homo Sapiens is ‘Dehumanizing’ and ‘Racist’
In a recent Instagram post, Craig first denies the doctrine of original sin, then claims that the belief that Jesus was born a virgin is not an essential Christian belief, both as it relates to his sinlessness and his deity.*
I suppose it depends on what you mean by “essential.” In one sense, it’s not essential to the deity of Jesus Christ. We shouldn’t think that it was in virtue of his being virginally conceived that Jesus was divine.
Even if he had had a human father, he still would have had a divine nature which he possessed from eternity past before he assumed a human nature as well.Nor is the virgin birth essential to the sinlessness of Jesus. If you think that original sin is passed on by human procreation, well then he would inherit original sin from Mary alone without Joseph, so that Roman Catholics have been compelled to affirm that Mary herself was immaculately conceived without original sin, a doctrine which has no biblical basis at all.
He continues:
So I would say that the virgin birth is ‘essential’ only in the sense that the Bible affirms it. Both Matthew and Luke teach it. It’s clearly meant to be taken as the way in which Jesus was conceived, and it may be that Jesus is to be understood as the Son of God in virtue of his virginal conception.
Luke says that the angel tells Mary, because the Holy Spirit is going to come upon you, that which is born of you will be called the Son of God.
So the virginal conception is inherent to the biblical view of Jesus, but it’s not essential to his deity or sinlessness in the way that some may have thought.
Craig previously adressed the issue of Jesus’ virgin birth in an interview with the New York Times, saying that he was “reasonably confident” that Jesus was born a virgin.
*An earlier headline read ‘Apologist William Lane Craig Says Belief in Jesus’ Virgin Birth is Not ‘Essential’ without the necessary caveat. We apologize for lack of clarity and misleading language.
13 responses to “Apologist William Lane Craig Says Belief in Jesus’ Virgin Birth is Not ‘Essential’ For the Sinlessness and Deity of Christ”
Teaching for doctrine, the commandments of Charles Darwin.
Science only factors the flesh. Yet man is made of flesh and spirit, with a soul. It is through man that sin entered the world. Through men that God’s promises are passed from generation to generation. All according to God’s created order. And science, which is the finite knowledge of mankind, cannot begin to understand what is truly passed down, flesh and spirit. Despite being focused solely on the flesh, without regard for the readily observable existence of the spirit of man, it doesn’t even begin to understand what is passed down solely flesh to flesh. It is possible that some sin nature is passed through paternal genes, through the flesh. Sure it is. The flesh is corrupted from the sin of Adam, and the change of Creation at that time, in ways we do not understand. But there’s a lot more to it than just genetics. An infinitude of things that we do not understand. And scripture is clear that much is passed to the spirit of man, created by the breath of God. Good things such as knowledge and that connection through our own spirit to our Creator, but also the weakness of man’s own spirit such that he is unable to save himself, of his own accord by his own righteousness, without the indwelling and aid of the Holy Spirit. The law is passed to the spirit (Romans first few chapters), not through the flesh. But God’s word is not implanted until we are born again. Science doesn’t begin to factor, much less understand, such things. But all know, as it is easily observable, mankind is far more than just flesh. And to deny it is to deny the Gospel, and the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. This man has a form of godliness but denies the power thereof.
It’s not just because the Bible says it, but why the Bible says it. And that is because the Holy Spirit testified to the Apostles that the virgin birth was absolutely relevant and necessary. This man is very humble and conciliatory toward the wicked world, but very arrogant and defiant toward his Creator. Friendship with the world is enmity with God (James 4:4). Who is he to say to mankind that the virgin birth isn’t relevant or necessary? Who is he to tell the Holy Spirit that he didn’t need to inspire the inclusion of such things in God’s Word? Does this man have the infinite knowledge and understanding of Almighty God? He speaks with authority about things he couldn’t possibly know or understand. And there’s nothing “reasonable” about that whatsoever.
It is not just the corruption of man that makes his spirit weak, but also the corruption of all of Creation. In the garden, food was free, shelter was free, there was no need for man to work, nor was there death or the fear of death. The spirit of man is not strong enough to keep his own corrupt flesh at bay, and is also not strong enough to deal with the corruption of all Creation since the sin of Adam.
Mr. Lane betrays the existence of that corrupted Creation, in the course of trying to appeal to and appease the wicked world. Why? Fear of not having shelter. Fear of not having food. Fear that not appeasing the wicked will make life harder and could jeopardize his survival.
We don’t know what is passed from generation to generation. But to only factor the flesh, and to essentially therefore assume that the spirit of man is strong enough of its own accord, otherwise, is extremely unwise, short-sighted, and incomplete. The inheritance of a weak spirit is completely ignored and factored out. Which, therefore, factors out the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Science knows that man has a spirit. But it doesn’t begin to understand it. It doesn’t even try to understand it, beyond vain and futile attempts to prove it is a mere product of nothing but fleshly genetics. And it certainly doesn’t begin to try to understand the Holy Spirit, and the reality that one can be born again – reborn with a spirit that is strong enough to withstand, because of the work of the Holy Spirit.
This is why Jesus said that sins against Him could be forgiven, but that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit could not and would not be forgiven. But none of us truly completely understands, even the Gospel. We could rationalize in the same manner as Mr. Lane, and say “well, since it’s about the work of the Holy Spirit, then Jesus didn’t need to die on the cross. The compulsion is to try to explain everything as if we’re the experts on everything, appealing to other “experts”, pretending to be very learned and knowledgeable in the sight of men (which again points right back to Creation and their desire to be like God, and to essentially call Him a liar, that it wasn’t for their own good that they recognize His superiority to them). But what we need to do is recognize the absolute fact that God is the only true expert, and that without Him, we’re all complete and total idiots. More humility toward our Creator, and less friendship and fealty to the wicked world, as if we need its approval.
oh good grief…
[…] Apologist William Lane Craig Says Belief in Jesus’ Virgin Birth is Not ‘Essential’ […]
It’s ok Protestia, philosophy is just hard for some folks 🙂 Once you understand “essential” properties and the finer points of mereology, you’ll get through this.
Well, to reject it, you have to reject the doctrine of original sin. Otherwise, Jesus would’ve been born into sin. And if you reject the doctrine of original sin, then you’ve denied the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ, and have denied the fact that He was the perfect and complete, unblemished sacrifice.
How’s that for essential?
The angel Gabriel gave the answer …
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be borne will be called holy—the Son of God.” – Luke 1:35
He was born of the Holy Spirit at conception. And if you understand the Gospel, and what it means to be born again, indwelled by the Holy Spirit, then you should also understand the significance. Death entered the world through the sin of one man, Adam (Romans 5). It is by the Holy Spirit that Jesus rose from the dead victorious over death.
Read Romans 5 and 6. The wages of sin is death. That is, the evidence of original sin is death. Jesus was victorious over death and the grave specifically because he was not born with original sin … specifically because He was born of the Holy Spirit, “holy – the Son of God”
I’m not a super duper ultra-educated expert, nor do I know much about the subject of philosophy, but it seems to me that if you don’t fully understand the whole, then you couldn’t possibly determine whether or not a given part is essential to it. That’s just plain old logic.
And the truth is that you don’t understand or know the whole. Nobody does. Only God fully and completely understands and knows the whole. That’s why no one could claim with any measurable certainty that the virgin birth is not essential.
That’s why it’s called “faith” … we trust Him because we don’t know what He knows. It’s that simple. And it is through faith that we are saved.
He said it was not essential to understanding the deity of Jesus. He emphatically, repeatedly said it’s an unavoidable truth of the Gospel narrative. You gotta start thinking these things through before you post them, man. You’re just stirring up trouble when there isn’t any, compromising your own trustworthiness. That or you need to stop drinking or doing drugs or whatever it is you’ve been doing before analyzing what people say. I refuse to believe you’re this mentally compromised.
Nailed it. Protestia’s rep for reliability has taken a hit with “hit pieces” like this. You just cannot consistently rely upon them. Sometimes they’re reliable and others times they reveal their lack of critical thinking skills, fairness and/or charity, etc.
WLC has it totally wrong,
The sin nature is passed through the man.
This was explained by Arthur Custance (1910–1985) in The Doorway Papers, “Seed of the Woman”.
The virgin birth was a spiritual imperative for Jesus, the sin-free atoning sacrifice, blood on the mercy seat.
Thank you Steven, I’ve found a copy of that online, and will read it. I believe it is also important for us to understand that all of Creation was corrupted, and death of all things entered the world. In the same verdict that God says Eve’s seed will be at enmity with the seed of the serpent (Gen. 3:15), God says the ground itself is cursed because of Adam’s sin (Gen. 3:17). And there, God also established the patriarchal lineage, the leadership of men, but also the responsibility of men (Gen. 3:16)
Jesus was not only not born into sin, He was also not “of the world”. That is, He wasn’t at the mercy of the corruption of Creation. Even as a man, if He can speak food into existence, then He’s not dependent on the product of toil in the fields. If He can command the weather and it obeys Him, then He is not at its mercy. Ultimately … if He can rise from the dead, and death cannot hold Him, then He has no fear of death. So He not only overcame the inherent sin nature, and inherent weakness of the spirit of man, by being not only filled with the Holy Spirit, but the seed of the Holy Spirit, the Creator Himself, but also was above and independent of the corruption of Creation itself. In the world, but not of the world, such that He could not be tempted, though the serpent tried to tempt him.
The point I’m trying to make here is that if we were to try to rationalize and to understand the ways of God (which we cannot), we’d have to recognize that there are many more possibilities. For example, it could be the combination of the seed of man and woman, or it could be an inherent weakness of spirit, and so on. And this logic refutes the notion that any man is knowledgeable and understanding enough to be able to tell Almighty God what is and is not essential. In order to make such a claim, he must ignore other possibilities. Since we could not fully understand, or even know, the whole, it’s impossible for us to know or claim that any part of it is not essential.
And that, by itself, could be a valid reason, even were it the only reason. Simply to remind us that He is our superior. That we cannot be like Him, that we must trust Him, that He is not lying to us. Because that was at the root of the sin of Adam and Eve. The pride, arrogance, discontent, rebellion, defiance. The serpent deceived them into believing God had lied to them. I.e., that He was just giving them this one rule because He was a mean guy who wanted to just “keep them down”, when they could be His equal, and that He wasn’t really doing so for their own good.
In other words, if we don’t understand why or how some part is essential, that in and of itself could very well be a valid reason for its existence – the fact that we don’t understand. Because we are talking about almighty God, who is infinite in power and knowledge, infinite in all ways, before whom we are infinitely inferior. And we must trust Him just as Adam and Eve should’ve trusted Him, that He knows things we do not know and could not know, much less understand. Scripture shows that God does such things, in a manner that we cannot understand, so that we will be dependent on Him. And that is reason enough, by itself. There is a passage that says exactly this, that God intentionally does things in a way that we don’t understand, so that we will depend on Him. And that is reason enough. From a certain perspective then, those things that the natural man might deem to be the least essential, would in reality be the most essential. I’ve been looking for it for the past several months, as it comes to mind, but can’t remember where it is. If I can find it today, I’ll post it here.
Sadly, this Craig continues to get worse and worse the older he gets.
Luis Molina <— gnostic garbage