Questions on Visions, Sin, and Young Earth Creationism

Questions from listeners about visions in the Bible, the origin of sin, and whether Young Earth Creationism is an embarrassment.

DR. CRAIG: Hello! This is William Lane Craig. I'm really excited about our spring campaign for strategic partners of Reasonable Faith. We are offering as a free premium two books, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus and The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus, both of which were previously available only in editions that cost literally several hundred dollars a piece. And now, because these books are being reprinted, we're able to offer them free to you for anyone offering a sustaining campaign gift of $75 monthly on an ongoing basis. If you're unable to give that much, we have many other fine premiums at lower levels like $50 a month, $30 a month, but this top award is so extraordinary, so unprecedented given the previously unaffordable and exorbitant price of these books that I really do hope you'll take advantage of it. This is my scholarly work done at the University of Munich on the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, and I think it will be a real benefit to you if you can get a hold of it. So I hope you'll participate in this year’s spring campaign.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question, he says,

Dear Dr. Craig, How do you understand the statement in Matthew 1:20 that an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream? I note that in a recent video concerning whether we shall see God in the afterlife you suggest impressions upon the mind rather than literal sensory-seeing. Do you think Joseph saw a real angel in real time as did Mary in Luke 1:26 through 30 or do you think God just caused impressions on Joseph's mind? Do you think angels have the capacity to create such dream impressions if that's your reading, or do you think God alone has that power? Steven, UK

DR. CRAIG: Since Matthew says that the angel appeared to Joseph in a dream rather than in reality, I think that this is a subjective impression on Joseph's mind that has been caused by God. Now, Steven says could the angel have the capacity to create such dream impressions? I have no idea, Stephen. I have no idea what the limits of the power of angels are or whether it's God alone that can cause such an impression. But since it is something that he sees in a dream, I would take this to be a visionary seeing rather than a real life materialization of an angel such as we might have in the appearance of Gabriel to Mary.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question,

Hi, Dr. Craig. I agree with your view of original sin, but I'm having trouble understanding where the inner inclination to sin originated. The doctrine of original sin teaches the origin of the inclination is a corruption resulting from the Fall. Is it that the inclination to sin is not a corruption of human nature and predates the Fall or could there be some other explanation? Dean, US

DR. CRAIG: Dean is correct that I don't accept the traditional doctrine of original sin that is held in Roman Catholicism or in the Protestant Reformers. As I read Genesis 3 (the account of the Fall) and Romans 5 (where Paul reflects on Adam's fall), it seems to me that neither passage teaches that the guilt of Adam is imputed to all of his descendants so that I am held literally guilty for Adam's sin. Nor do I find in those narratives, perhaps surprisingly, that Adam’s sin resulted in a corruption of human nature which is passed on through his descendants to us today. That's a notion which would be very difficult to understand in any case. How in the world would moral corruption be transmitted genetically? Augustine thought that this moral corruption of original sin was transmitted through the semen in sexual intercourse, and virtually no one would hold that today. This not only involves an extremely negative view of human sexuality, but it is utterly mysterious how a moral factor could be transmitted through physical or genetic procreation. So it seems to me that a more plausible view of this inclination to sin that is so manifest in the human race every day is that human beings as biological organisms have built into them an instinctual drive to self-preservation that is necessary for them to be biologically viable organisms. So this drive to self-preservation results in a kind of selfishness that then becomes sin in creatures like ourselves who are moral agents. Now, there is a view of original sin in Roman Catholicism that is consistent with this that I find very plausible, very attractive. That view is that in the state of innocence prior to the Fall, Adam and Eve had a kind of superadded gift of God's grace that gave them the ability to manage successfully their natural biological drives and instincts and therefore, with the power of the Holy Spirit and the grace of God, they were able to function as morally integrated persons. But with the Fall, this superadded gift of God's grace was lost, and so all human beings since that time are born simply with this animal nature of our bodies that has this biological instinctual drive toward self-preservation without the superadded gift of God's grace that allows us to manage it. So our biological drives and impulses are literally out of control, and this results in the universality of human sin, especially when this natural impulse is conjoined with a society that is permeated by this evil so that children are naturally brought up to imitate the evil that is all around them. I find this quasi-Catholic view of original sin which sees it as a privation of God's superadded grace under which we all labor to be a very plausible account of the universality of sin today.

KEVIN HARRIS: Question from Norway.

Hello, Dr. Craig. Although I am a Christian, I have lots and lots of interests that are not necessarily related to God and Christianity. I study psychology at university, but I also like reading about philosophy, sociology, literature, politics, etc. To give an example, I've read most of Friedrich Nietzsche's work even though I am a convinced Christian. Lately I've been wondering whether I should feel guilty about all my interests. If Jesus rose from the dead then it seems to me that worshiping God and learning all there is to know about him is my only duty and all that matters in life. If this is so, is the time spent researching other topics a waste of time? Is it okay to have intellectual hobbies, and is there maybe some way for me to use all these interests in God's interest or to honor God? I hope this wasn't too long. Thank you. Eric, Norway.

DR. CRAIG: Thank you, Eric, for this question. I think that the presupposition of Eric's question is incorrect. He says worshiping God and learning all there is to know about him is “my only duty and all that matters in life.” And that's clearly an unbiblical view. Your family, for example, matters in life. Paul said if anyone will not provide for the needs of his family he's worse than an infidel and has denied the faith. And as Christian husbands, we’re called upon to love our wives just as Christ loved the church. So it's simply not true that worshiping God and learning to know him is our only duty or all that matters. Rather, what Jesus taught in Matthew 6:33 is that we are to seek first the kingdom of God and its righteousness and then all these other things will be yours as well. So Eric is right that our first and foremost priority in life should be getting to know God and being conformed to his image, but then these other things fall into line in subservience to that and can become means by which we are effective servants of the Lord in extending his kingdom. So I want to say to Eric: Go for it! It's wonderful that you have all of these other educational interests, and you should pursue them enthusiastically and ask God to use them in your life as you seek first and foremost to know him and follow him.

KEVIN HARRIS: Here's the next question.

I've been listening to The Defenders series, and I have just finished part eight of the section on Christ. The course has been going over the two distinct and separate natures of Jesus in his one body. Dr. Craig keeps referring back to how the natures are not partial; that Jesus is fully human and fully God. Part of human nature is being fallible. Part of God's nature is not being fallible. I do not recall any portion of the Bible where Jesus fails. All humans fail to meet the expectations of God or perfection in some way at some time. Does Jesus' lack of failure take away from his human nature because he does not have that experience? Why? Carolyn, United States

DR. CRAIG: Carolyn's interesting question, I think, confuses being a human person and having a human nature. Being fallible, even if that's part of what it means to be a human person, it's important to understand that Jesus Christ was not a human person. He was a divine person. He was the second person of the Trinity who then assumed a human nature. But there is no human person, Jesus of Nazareth. The idea that there is a divine person and human person in Christ is a heresy called Nestorianism which divides the person of Christ into human and divine. So Christ is uniquely a divine person and therefore infallible. Therefore, I don't think there's any problem with Christ having a complete and full human nature. Fallibility is something that belongs to the person, not to the nature. And Jesus is not a human person.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question.

Dr. Craig, regarding your assertion on Cross-Examined that Young Earth Creationism is an embarrassment, I offer you the same comment I offered on the YouTube channel itself. Here it is. “I am not a Young Earth Creationist, but Dr. Craig's assertion that the concept is an embarrassment because it turns secular scientists off to Christianity makes about as much sense as cautioning certain members of a race from behaving poorly lest they be responsible for the ensuing racism of others. If you blame a movement because of the opinions of some of its members, the problem is not the movement or the diversity of opinion – the problem is you and what likely amounts to your desire to find an excuse to reject it anyway. Any movement or ideology can only have its merits determined by a proper investigation of the movement or ideology in and of itself, not by the opinions of some of its adherents. If it is rejected by someone because of the opinions or behaviors of some of its adherents then it is rejected on intellectually poor grounds and is likely symptomatic of a desire to reject it anyway. Shame on you, Dr. Craig, for your assertion. It was also once aptly said with regard to the body of Christ “In the essentials, we must have unity. In the non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.” Asserting that Young Earth Creationism is an embarrassment is neither a respect to liberty of thought nor charitable. Chad

DR. CRAIG: I want to agree with Chad when he says that any movement or ideology can only have its merits determined by a proper investigation of the movement or ideology in and of itself. And my claim is that when you investigate the merits of Young Earth Creationism it is intellectually indefensible. The idea that the world – the universe – was created a few thousand years ago in six consecutive 24-hour days is indefensible. The idea that there was a worldwide flood within human history that exterminated all terrestrial life on Earth (animal as well as human) is indefensible. The idea that all human languages originated from a ziggurat in Babylon a few thousand years ago is intellectually indefensible. So Young Earth Creationism is an incredible embarrassment for the Christian faith today. It's akin to defending a flat Earth and saying that as Christians we are committed to this. So I repeat what I said before that this movement is doing tremendous harm to the Christian faith by portraying this intellectually indefensible view as essential to the truth of Christianity and of the Gospel and prevents people from coming to know Christ by erecting unnecessary obstacles in its way. My problem is not at all with the proponents of this movement or with their liberty to proclaim their view. My problem is with the view itself and the terrible harm that it's doing to the cause of Christ in our contemporary culture.

KEVIN HARRIS: Yeah. I've never heard you talking about the behavior of certain people who hold to Young Earth Creationism. You're talking about the view itself, the merits, the teachings of whatever, and he's talking about “don't have a problem with Young Earth because of the way some of the people who believe it act.”

DR. CRAIG: Right, and that doesn't connect with me. I don't think I've ever attacked Young Earth Creationists as persons for their behavior or demeanor or anything of that sort.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question. This is from Canada.

Greetings, Dr. Craig. I'm a Muslim who happened to stumble upon your website to explore answers to the question of God's omnibenevolence. Your answer to the question is quite insightful. I did, however, wish to raise one question though. In your Question of the Week #177 perfect being theology article, I was surprised to see you say, “So suppose someone is not a moral nihilist and thinks that omnibenevolence is a moral property but denies that God has it because it infringes on His omnipotence (I can imagine a Muslim arguing in this way).” I'm curious to know where you learned that Muslims deny an omnibenevolent God. A clear counterargument can be drawn from practically any page in the Qu’ran as the two most oft-repeated names of God are “the most merciful” and “the most forgiving.” Respectfully, Asib, Canada.

DR. CRAIG: What I meant, Asib, is that it seems to me that in Islam omnibenevolence is not an essential property of God because God's omnipotence trumps everything. It trumps even his own moral character. So, for example, Muslims actually believe that on the Day of Judgment if God wanted to he is so powerful that he could decide at that last minute that he's going to send all faithful Muslims to hellfire forever and he's going to instead save all of the Christians and the atheists. And for the Muslim, God is so omnipotent that you cannot say that he would be constrained by his moral character, or omnibenevolence, from doing such a thing. He can do whatever he wants. And so that's what I meant. It seems to me that in Islam there is this view that the omnipotence of God supersedes or trumps any other characters that he might have including even his mercy and love.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question.

Dear Dr. Craig, I have a question on the argument from intentionality. The point of the argument from intentionality is to say that matter can't be about anything, but our thoughts can be about things. So our thoughts can't be material. However, material information like words on a paper can be about things, so why can't brain states be about things? I agree that we have an immaterial soul, but I don't know if this is a good way to argue for the soul. Tom, US

DR. CRAIG: The Berkeley philosopher, John Searle, has addressed this very interesting question. What Searle points out is that words on paper or sounds that we speak into the air considered simply as ink marks on a piece of paper or noises made in the air (sound waves reverberating) have no meaning and are not about anything. It is only insofar as these ink marks are grasped by a mind who infuses them with meaning that these things have a kind of derivative intentionality. So ink marks on paper, sounds, noises in the air, have no intrinsic “aboutness” or intentionality. They are about things only insofar as they are the vehicles that are used for a mind who thinks about things by using these marks and these noises. So I think that the illustration actually goes to reinforce the essentiality of the immaterial mind as the seat of intentional states.^[1]