#972 Theological Clarifications

Dr. craig’s response

I’ve addressed these questions in my published work and in my Defenders lectures on Doctrine of Christ and 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-Apollinarianism. 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 (i) Adam’s guilt for his sin is imputed to every one of his descendants, so that we are condemned for what Adam did, and (ii) 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 super-added 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.