I’ve long argued that William Lane Craig is a dangerous man. So dangerous that many of his views, teachings, and apologetic arguments are rooted in man’s flawed reasoning, rather than what God has revealed about Himself through His word.
Craig’s views have often come dangerously close to rank heresy, especially when taken to their logical conclusion—whether it be his Molinism, or his views on Creation, or anything else.
But this might be the most blatant false teaching of them all.
In a recent clip published by Craig, he dismisses the historic orthodox Trinitarian belief that the Son is eternally begotten by the Father. He also dismisses the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son.
For reference, the Nicene Creed reads, of the Son:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
And of the Holy Spirit:
And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
And the Athanasian Creed affirms the same doctrine:
The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
he was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
he proceeds from the Father and the Son.
The doctrine of procession is as ancient and as biblical as the Scriptures themselves, but Craig rejects them.
In the clip, Craig acknowledges that the early church affirmed these doctrines, and that the doctrine of procession of the Holy Spirit was debated—does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father alone or from the Father and the Son?
But Craig says it doesn’t matter, because he doesn’t believe any of it anyway, calling this doctrine an “ecclesiastical add-on.” He replies:
“Uh, for me, this is a tempest in a teapot, uh, because I don't believe in these Trinitarian processions. I think that this is an ecclesiastical add-on to the New Testament that is not taught in the New Testament itself. And so I look at these sorts of debates with an attitude of indifference.”
So this creates the central question. If the Son is not eternally begotten, then in what meaningful sense is He even eternally the Son, and in what meaningful way is the Father eternally the Father?
