meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
Reasonable Faith Podcast

Question of the Week #941: Finding a Biblical Doctrine of Sin

Reasonable Faith Podcast

William Lane Craig

Religion & Spirituality, Philosophy, Society & Culture, Christianity

4.71.5K Ratings

🗓️ 29 May 2025

⏱️ 8 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Read this Question of the Week Here: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/finding-a-biblical-doctrine-of-sin

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

On X, this post by reasonable faith is getting quite a bit of attention, and I've heard several people call Dr. Craig a heretic for what he says

0:21.1

in this video, link attached. Can you please clarify your view? Are children born without sin

0:27.3

of any kind? Or are they born without Adamic guilt, but nevertheless have Adamic corruption?

0:33.4

If they go to heaven, isn't it still on the basis of God's grace rather than on the basis of their innocence?

0:39.9

Isn't it the case that children are born unregenerate and therefore were by nature children of wrath like the rest of mankind, Ephesians 2, 3?

0:50.9

Just looking for some clarification on this issue. Thank you, Nathaniel from the United States.

0:56.5

There is no universally agreed upon doctrine of sin in Christendom, and no ecumenical council

1:05.6

has pronounced on it. So the different creeds and confessions of various churches concerning the

1:14.3

doctrine of sin are binding only upon those who are members of a particular ecclesiastical

1:22.6

body. One man's orthodoxy may be another man's heresy.

1:28.3

The only justifiable inference that may be drawn from this video is, hmm, I guess Dr. Craig is not a Catholic, Lutheran, or Calvinist.

1:41.7

I wonder if he's Eastern Orthodox or Armenian or Wesleyan.

1:49.6

What is vastly more important than adherence to a denominational creed, therefore, is whether one's

1:58.2

doctrine of sin is biblical. On this score, my studied view is that the doctrine

2:06.3

that Adam's sin is imputed to each of his descendants so that each of us is guilty of Adam's sin

2:16.7

is unbiblical. This so-called doctrine of sin is unbiblical. This so-called doctrine of original guilt is not taught in the

2:26.0

story of the fall in Genesis 3, nor in Romans 5, as I've argued in my book, In Quest of the Historical Adam.

2:37.0

The story of the fall does describe the first or primal sin committed by human beings,

2:44.5

along with its disastrous consequences for all mankind.

2:50.0

But one looks in vain for any indication by the author that all humans

2:56.3

are held to be guilty of Adam's sin. Moreover, there is no suggestion in the story that Adam and

3:06.4

Eve's sin resulted in a corruption of human nature

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from William Lane Craig, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of William Lane Craig and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2025.