William Lane Craig’s Captivating Philosophies

This is William Lane Craig. He is an apologist. An apologist for what? A theistic god. It certainly isn’t the God of the Bible, although he would say that it is. Throughout this video, he is asked to explain the things God can and can’t do. Which leads me to the question, what can William Lane Craig do and not do? Well, for starters, he CAN appeal to philosophical conclusions. He can appeal to Molinism. He CAN’T appeal to the Bible. And as you watch this video you will notice that he never does.

He begins by telling the interviewer that omnipotence is difficult to define with great philosophical precision. Then why not define it biblically? It’s not difficult.

“The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations.” [Psalm 33:11]

“Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.” [Psalm 115:11]

““Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.” [Isaiah 46:8-11]

“All the people of the earth are nothing compared to him. He does as he pleases among the angels of heaven and among the people of the earth. No one can stop him or say to him, ‘What do you mean by doing these things?'” [Daniel 4:35]

He goes into an explanation of how God can’t do illogical things. I agree that it would be illogical for God to create a square triangle, or whatever – but, if you are telling these people that you are a Christian, then appeal to the Bible. He doesn’t ever mention the God of the Bible in this entire video; only a theistic god over and above a deistic god.

The interviewer then asks, “Can God sin?” Craigs answer is, “No, for example, He can’t sin because that would be a logical contradiction for an absolutely essentially holy being to do evil.”

There’s just a problem here, Mr. Craig. The Bible says that God creates evil.

“I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.” [Isaiah 45:7]

Other translations, like the KJV, translate the word “calamity” as “evil.” I’ve normally heard people say, “Well, that’s calamity! That’s not evil!” What exactly is your definition of calamity? What does it involve? Does it not involve the sinful acts of men? Certainly.

““Have you not heard that I determined it long ago? I planned from days of old what now I bring to pass, that you should turn fortified cities into heaps of ruins” [2 Kings 19:25]

“Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid? Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?” [Amos 3:6]

How will Craig answer the reply of the atheist who says, “What about murders, rapes, etc??” Can’t God stop that?! In Genesis 20:6, God tells Abimelech that He kept him from touching Abraham’s wife Sarah:

“Then God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her.”

What if the unbeliever asks Craig, “Why didn’t God keep the rapist from touching my daughter?” What philosophies will Craig appeal to then? It certainly won’t be that God works all things together for the good of His elect [Romans 8:28], that He might be glorified throughout the earth. No no no. William Lane Craig is too busy pushing Molinism, a counter reformational soteriology created by the Jesuit Molina. It is a view that says that god has middle knowledge of all events throughout time. Before he ever created the world, this god saw every possible universe he could’ve created given that creatures have free will. He decided to create this universe because this is the best option of all possible universes in which the most people would come to a knowledge of god. And, of course, the kicker is that god chooses you, because he saw your obedience beforehand. Good for you, sport! Give yourself a big ol’ pat on the back! Hey, as long as man is the one with the ultimate authority! So it is no surprise that all of this ends with Craig explaining the Molinistic worldview. Notice that no Scripture has been used to support such a perverted perspective.

William Lane Craig needs to repent of this philosophical VAIN system that he goes around blinding  people with. If he won’t repent, then he needs to stop calling himself a Christian. He is a DANGER to God’s people.

“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” Colossian 2:8


7 thoughts on “William Lane Craig’s Captivating Philosophies”

  1. This is a great little post. Great. However, at the end, you wrote, “WLC needs to repent… If he won’t repent, then he needs to stop calling himself a Christian.” Does this imply that you believe WLC is regenerate, and is an actual Christian who’s just way off-the-mark and confused, or do you believe he is lost? It would seem that someone who is “blinding” others is of Satan, no? It would seem that someone who is a “DANGER to God’s people” is not a Christian, correct?


    1. Hey, Roberto – great question. I can see why this might be confusing. I don’t believe WLC is a brother. He does, however, claim to be a Christian. My point is that, unless he shows the fruit of being regenerate – that is, turning from a trust in these philosophical, anthropocentric & unbiblical worldview AND believing the gospel – then the name doesn’t stick. I don’t mean to imply that he is regenerate.


      1. I have never ONCE heard Craig speak of himself as a sinner, in a debate, in an interview, etc… Christ said He came for the ‘sick’ (sinners in need of the Savior), not the ‘whole’ (the self-righteous false religionists). Craig doesn’t seem very sick to me. He seems just as any other unregenerate philosopher does: comfortable, speaking peace when there is no peace, in love with himself and his own grand ideas, and BLIND to just how SICK he truly is. I can picture Craig pleading with the other false believers at the judgment… “Lord, Lord, didn’t I debate all over the world in Your Name? Didn’t I use brilliant arguments for Your existence countless times, casting down the unbelievers in Your Name? Didn’t I dazzle the world with my superior intelligence and big words, and all of my good works in Your Name?” And what will Christ say to this filthy, prideful sinner? “I NEVER knew you. DEPART from me, you worker of LAWLESSNESS.” (God have mercy on Craig, if He will.)

        Paul said he hadn’t come with fancy words, but with the simple Gospel message.

        Craig is incredibly religious, but he’s serving a false god.

        Whores and thieves are closer to God’s mercy than people like Craig.

        I saw Craig look directly at a woman’s cleavage once at a Q&A session, post-debate. She was speaking to him, asking him a question. I was stunned. Am I morally perfect? By NO means. However, I’m not the Arminian, while Craig is. Who knows what’s boiling beneath his white-washed façade? Remember the Pharisees that brought out the woman caught in adultery? One by one they left the scene, because Christ ended up exposing THEM! And Christ had mercy on the woman!

        May God have mercy on liars and sinners like Craig, if He will.


  2. The idea of a finite god, although it is a non-Christian expedient, has nonetheless a certain amount of merit by reason of its honesty. Professing Christians are not always so frank. In a certain Christian college the head of the Bible Department used to tell his students not to discuss the subject (indeed, this was rather clearly the policy of the institution), for the subject is controversial. It is also unedifying. And the professor should have added, it is embarrassing. For when some pointed questions were asked him, he grew irritated and replied, “I do not like the kind of questions you ask.” Perhaps such colleges think that if evil is never mentioned, the students will never hear about it. They seem to forget that the secular enemies of Christianity will soon remind them and ask them controversial, unedifying, and embarrassing questions. Such an attitude of secrecy did not characterize the great Christian theologians: Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin. We may perhaps not agree with this one or that one, but like the modern secularists they were open and honest. Before we drop the idea of a finite god, however, there is one interesting consideration to mention. If the mixture of good and evil in the world rules out the possibility of a good and omnipotent God, and if the extent of good in the world hardly allows the assumption of an infinite evil demon, it still does not follow that there is a finite good God. A finite evil god is an equally acceptable conclusion. Instead of saying that God does the best he can, but being limited he cannot quite eliminate the evil in the world, we could just as well say that God does the worst he can, but being limited he cannot quite eradicate the forces of good which oppose his will. Evidently, therefore, the advocates of a finite god arrive at their conclusion more by emotion than by reason.

    Gordon H. Clark. Religion, Reason and Revelation (Kindle Locations 4465-4478). The Trinity Foundation.


  3. By the way, Gordon H. Clark also said that this is the only possible world because God is eternally immutable. If God could have possibly created other words, it would imply that God changes His mind. God’s eternal purposes do not change because He is an eternal being.

    “Might does not make right,” is an implicit attack against God’s sovereignty. God does what He pleases and He is subject to no law external to Himself. God answers to no creature.

    Furthermore, the ontological argument can only apply if you first accept the God revealed in Scripture. Apologetics begins with the axiom that Scripture is the Word of God.

    Some things are independent of God’s will? Limitations on God’s freedom? Please! WLC is an atheist or a skeptic pretending to be a Christian.


Comments are closed.