Unreal Apologetics: Bill Craig Denies Original Sin?

When evidential/classical apologetics is forced to deal with its faulty presuppositions, the results can often be startling. Teachings that were once easy to embrace, speak, and write about become objects of sacrifice when faced with the hard questions of skeptics. Indeed, with the wrong method, even the greatest minds crumble.

Such is the case with William Lane Craig in his debate with Shabir Ally at Biola University. Yet another Craiginite came bursting into the #prosapologian chat channel today, and he just couldn’t believe it when I said that Bill Craig denied the doctrine of original sin during one of his debates. Of course, I couldn’t believe my ears either when I heard for the first time these words coming from “one of the greatest Christian philosophers and apologists” of our day:

“Shabir thinks that I’m presupposing that people are born depraved. Not at all. I am willing to set aside the doctrine of original sin.” – William Lane Craig

Ally asked the obvious question after this comment:

“If there is no original sin, then what did Jesus Christ come to die for? This I would like to understand a bit more.”

Craig, of course, not representing a fully orthodox (and certainly not a Reformed) perspective, later said in response that Christ died for “actual” sins.

Now, I understand it is incredibly easy to quote Christian thinkers out of context, especially during verbal discourse. The benefit of the doubt should be given whenever possible. But this was no mistake of hearing. And for those who want to hear it and decide for themselves, click here to download. A full Reformed review of the debate can be located here and here.

Christians are faced with a serious dilemma in these types of situations. Either Craig truly doubts the orthodox doctrine of original sin, or he simply made a slip of the tongue. If Craig does truly doubt the doctrine of original sin, the question Christians – especially young and energetic ones who love apologetics -  must ask themselves, is why and how is this apologist considered one of the greatest apologists and Christian philosophers of our day? (Could this be an example of, to borrow from Jellema’s words to Van Til, “going too far”?) If Craig simply made a slip of the tongue, then why does he insist on making a distinction between original sin and “actual” moments later in the same debate?

Whatever the case, this is to document but one of countless instances of when the poor (and unfortunately popular) apologetic method of classicalism/evidentialism self-destructs. When apologetic method is not founded upon our theology, our theology inevitably becomes sacrificed in the process of doing apologetics, which is exactly the case of Craig vs. Ally.