Hello, Dr. Craig. My name is Caleb McManus. I am 17, and I am a big fan of your work. I am currently looking to go to school for theology and philosophy.

I have heard that you believe heresies like Apollinarianism and reject original sin.

Could you bring some clarity to these claims that people on the internet are making?

Caleb, United States.

I've addressed these questions in my published work and in my defender's lectures

on the doctrine of Christ and the doctrine of sin. But since many people are unfamiliar with them,

let me take advantage of your questions, Caleb, to clarify, if not defend, my views. The first allegation is false. After explaining why Apollinarius' view is unacceptable, I modify his doctrine of the incarnation in order to make it theologically acceptable. A view I call

neo-apolinarianism. The key difference is

that Apollinarius held that the divine Logos

replaced the rational soul of Christ, whereas I hold that the divine Logos is identical with the rational

soul of Christ. This is the crucial distinction between a replacement thesis and an identity thesis.

The second allegation depends on what you mean by original sin.

I affirm that the historical Adam and Eve committed a primal sin that opened the floodgates that let sin and spiritual death into the human race.

What I do not find in the Bible, and so do not believe, is that, one,

Adam's guilt for his sin is imputed to every one of his descendants, so that we are condemned for what Adam did.

And two, Adam's sin resulted in a corruption of human nature that is somehow mysteriously transmitted to all his descendants.

What I am inclined to believe is Thomas Aquinas view that as a result of their sin,

Adam and Eve suffered a loss of God's superadded grace, which I would identify with the Holy Spirit,

that had enabled them to live sinless lives. That privation is transmitted to their descendants,

resulting in the universality of sin.