William L Craig and evolution

Discussion in 'All Other Discussions' started by SolaSaint, Mar 19, 2012.

  1. SolaSaint

    SolaSaint
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,824
    Likes Received:
    25
    I was listening to James White's latest Dividing Line and he had a sound bite from William Lane Craig stating he supported Theistic Evolution. He even used the Catholic position that man evolved until he was able to receive a soul by God. He stated that the majority of Christians don't have a problem with Darwinian evolution. He believes that many theories are open to Christians including Theistic Evolution and that is OK.

    I like Craig and have some of his books but this really floored me. He is considered to be one of the best apologists if not the best today and he believes it's ok to believe God used evolution? Isn't the conservative position on evolution settled that it does damage to creationism as exegeted from scripture? If that makes sense--sorry couldn't state that very well.

    My question; is Craig still a respectable apologist or is he even leaning towards liberal theological views?
     
  2. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't answer for Craig, but theistic evolution has never troubled me as a fundamental , Bible-thumping Baptist all my life. I think there is a great misunderstanding about Theistic eveolution and far too many attempts to equate it with Darwinianism.

    First, Theistic evolution, simply put, allows for the time span that exists naturally in scripture, but is not delineated clearly. This is simply because the Bible, as we know it, is the line of salvation and not an historical document.

    Many tried to accommodate the time changes by introducing the so-called "gap theory" in Genesis and dispensationalism, the division of the old testament and the parenthetical gospels and a future "millenialism".

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  3. SolaSaint

    SolaSaint
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,824
    Likes Received:
    25
    I have to disagree with you on one point, the bible is a historical document.
     
  4. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    where the Bible records historical events, it is absolutely accurate, but it is not an historical book per se. The are many absent documents.

    Many events of the man, Adam's 900 years is missing.........his 27 offspring. The important theologial sons are presented. We rely on other documents for the other offspring. Many other incidents also lack details, not important to theology.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  5. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0

Share This Page

Loading...