A lot of people are up in arms at the moment about a paragraph in William Lane Craig’s answer to Question 193 “Overweening Ignorance.” Facebook, blogs, twitter and message boards are abuzz with Christians angrily attacking Craig with the charge that this paragraph shows he either does not hold to the doctrine of original sin or that he thinks it is not essential to Christianity.
i) How does Matt know that we are “angrily” attacking Craig?
ii) If we are angrily attacking Craig, does this mean that Matt is angrily defending Craig?
The conclusion we are supposed to draw is that Craig is denying the truth of these passages and views these as “optional.”
Where did I indicate that Craig was denying the truth of these passages? How does Matt derive that conclusion from what I wrote?
In “Hollywood Squares” Hays draws a ejusdem generis parallel between Craig’s paragraph and the writings of liberal scholars like Spong, Bultmann and The Archbishop of Canterbury.
I didn’t identify them as liberals. I find it shocking that Matt would angrily attack Craig by comparing him to a bunch of liberals. He should be more charitable.