Theologically Sound. Culturally Relevant.

William Lane Craig

Is William Lane Craig a false teacher?

Category 5

Verdict: William Lane Craig is a theological liberal with no foundation to believe basic Christian orthodoxy



Part of how this Discernment ministry operates is taking in reader questions about prevalent teachers. This verdict on William Lane Craig is part reader request and part tip to cover a recent interview he gave. For the sake of the article’s longevity, this will do both as the recent interview answers the question as to whether William Lane Craig is a false teacher or not. You can make a request here and see our answered verdicts here.


William Lane Craig is a renown apologist who has gone on several atheist versus theist debates and made the rounds writing books and doing speaking engagements about the evidence of the existence of God.

Historical Adam

This is the primary lynchpin in which William Lane Craig exposes himself. In the below video, Evangelical Dark Web covers a book interview he does with Sean McDowell on his quest for the historical Adam. This video will be the basis for the below red flags in this verdict.

Denial of Original Sin

William Lane Craig makes it very clear he does not believe in Original Sin. In fact he goes on to say that he does not know what the first sin of mankind was, despite Genesis 3 being rather explicit. Original Sin is foundational to the Christian understanding of the gospel. If Adam’s sin is not imputed into mankind, then theoretically mankind may not need a savior after all. William Lane Craig posits that we sin not because of human nature but human upbringing and environment. Under this understanding it is conceivable for mankind to achieve a sinless utopia. This is antithetical to the gospel and the Christian view of sin.

The Bible is myth

William Lane Craig believes that Genesis 1-11 is a completely different genre than the rest of Genesis. This of course fails to recognize that the indexing of the Bible happened well after the establishment of the New Testament church. A simple reading of Genesis 11:10-32 shows that there is no separation split in the genre of Genesis. William Lane Craig does not believe that the Bible is true, although he believes in the Resurrection for some reason, yet he refuses to believe that this would then make God a liar because he “respects genres.”

Heretical Anthropology

William Lane Craig attempts to reconcile the views that all of mankind is descended from Adam and Eve with his belief in Darwinian evolution, a term he seemingly distances himself from. William Lane Craig admits that he does not want the Young Earth creationist account to be true, and insists that one can hold to Darwinian Evolution and maintain his preferred commitments to orthodoxy. But William Lane Craig is not an Old Earth Creationist, as his views are outside of their beliefs.

To summarize, William Lane Craig tries to split the baby between a belief in Adam and Eve and his belief in Darwinian Evolution by positing that it is plausible that Adam and Eve were an evolved race of proto-humans that had developed a soul and rationality and all mankind is descended from these two individuals. This theory does not explain what happened to the other proto-humans that were contemporaries of the image baring proto-humans, but suggests that they were wiped out. This of course does not line up with any reading of Genesis.

On top of positing a middle ground theory that placates his own sensibilities but has no broad appeal, William Lane Craig has a mocking tone towards those who hold a traditional Christian belief on Adam.


William Lane Craig is perhaps the next figure in a line of Christian apologists who were not actual believers. The death of Ravi Zacharias showed that one could do great works in this field and still not repent of his actual sins. In this case, William Lane Craig bills himself as a philosopher yet his entire arguments on creation hold no water because they are meant to placate his own feelings and doubts, as they are not grounded in faith in a sovereign and omnipotent God. William Lane Craig does not believe that Scripture has to be accurate in order for God to be good, true, and loving. His attempt to pursue a historical Adam are much like the quests for the historical Jesus from heretics generations ago. This story doesn’t end well and in the meantime, William Lane Craig has denied fundamental doctrines of Christianity and has no understanding of the gospel. Therefore we must conclude that William Lane Craig is a Category 5 false teacher.


10 Responses

  1. Yes absolutely — Dr. Craig seems to be open to faith in Christ but his mind has been corrupted by the false teaching of this age regarding evolution and history. Being open to faith and actually having faith are two very different things. The “genre” argument is so lame and easy to disprove — the fact that somebody as well educated as Dr. Craig is using it shows how willful his unbelief is, and excludes any possibility of pleading ignorance at judgement.

  2. If any of you out there try to connect Darwinism and the Bible, please research two facts. One: Darwinism said that if the fossil record doesn’t reveal new evidence within fifty years or so, then evolution is false. Two: the rock layers being millions of years is arbitrary. Scientists figure that it takes millions of years because they don’t see new layers being formed. The timeline has not been proven, just repeated over and over again as if it is true. That is called propaganda. Millions of years originated from the 1700s when scientists decided they wanted science that sounded less Biblicsl, so they made up the idea of uniformtarism, or the idea that everything that ever happened only ever happens with processes we see today. That is not testable, therefore is a worldview, not science.

  3. Terrible. Just a terrible and ill-informed condemnation of a wonderful man of God. You ought to be ashamed but you’re not. It’s clear you know little about Dr. Craig. You have run swiftly to condemn someone you know very little about. I know well the drill you’re engaging. You’re a sincer seeker of the truth – right? I know. All you want to know is the truth and you think you can just hammer those scriptures and you will know it.

    Well Paul hammered them too. He knew them well too didn’t he? He sure did. Yet he didn’t recognize His Messiah. He too condemned those who belonged to Jesus.

    Paul testified, “I was circumcised when I was eight days old. I am a pure-blooded citizen of Israel and a member of the tribe of Benjamin—a real Hebrew if there ever was one! I was a member of the Pharisees, who demand the strictest obedience to the Jewish law. I was so zealous that I harshly persecuted the church. And as for righteousness, I obeyed the law without fault. I once thought these things were valuable, but now I consider them worthless because of what Christ has done.” That’s right – he considered all his knowledge and discipline to the Word of God as rubbish! You better let that sink in long and hard young man. You’re treading treacherous waters.

    Jesus warned the Jewish leaders, “You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me! Yet you refuse to come to me to receive this life. Your approval means nothing to me, because I know you don’t have God’s love within you.”

    So keep on pounding those scriptures and tracking down those false teachers! Show everybody how much you grasp *the truth.* There have been greater men than you who knew the scriptures far better and yet like those Jewish leaders neither would they recognize their Savior even if He stood right in front of their face.

    1. I agree with KW, EDW knows far too little about Craig to even bother commenting. The comment, “William Lane Craig does not believe that the Bible is true” is simply ludicrous. If that were true, why has he devoted his entire life to studying of the Bible as a self-proclaimed Christian, one who has written some 7 DOZEN books all directly related to this project, the latest most substantial being his Systematic Philosophical Theology (; )? Now, you could argue that Craig is just another Bart Ehrman, but if you did that you would simply PROVE your lack of critical analysis.

      My highest recommendation is to delete this post entirely and either start over from scratch and do a better job (and the number grade you give will drop precipitously), or just leave it to others to critique Craig. I must say, this post raises questions about the accuracy of your discernment mission, altogether. I hate to be brutal about it, but it seems as if you’re really pointing the finger of discernment squarely at yourself, EDW. Again, sorry, I don’t usually behave so indignantly, and the fact that I’ve been so upfront about my critique of your critique indicates the degree to which I’ve been left breathless by it.

      1. “Again, sorry, I don’t usually behave so indignantly, and the fact that I’ve been so upfront about my critique of your critique indicates the degree to which I’ve been left breathless by it.”

        This sentence alone shows that (1) You are NOT truly “sorry” about anything you’ve said, but use the all too common phraseology of beginning a rebuttal, argument, snide comment (and so on) with “I’m sorry” so as to seem agreeable and lacking in hostility toward your opponent (it is also used incessantly today as a way of getting in one more jab for your “side” – and of course, the rest of the sentence is nothing more than a blame shifting on your part, that (in your mind) frees you from being responsible for your own words or actions by making your target to be at fault for what you say or do.

        This is a ridiculously common tactic in modern society – but as the Bible teaches, only we ourselves are ever to blame for our sins – and you might as well have signed off with a “Don’t be judging me dude!”

  4. Pffft, well your site lost all credibility in my book. I can already tell you did not do as much research as you should have. You critique his view on adam; no offense, but did you even bother reading his book? I ask because you say he considers it to be myth when he doe not even use that specific word. he uses the term “mytho-history” and you give no definition of what he actually means by it. This page could be more of a blessing if you guys do more careful research

Leave a Reply