I greatly appreciate and respect the apologetics of William Lane Craig. He has thankfully been a powerful force for truth and apologetics in the church. However, some are rightfully questioning his understanding of the Trinity, which is at odds with the historic church. In his article entitled “Is God the Son Begotten in His Divine Nature?” published in 2019, Craig summarizes his argument thus,

The doctrine of the Father’s begetting the Son in his divine nature, despite its credal affirmation, enjoys no clear scriptural support and threatens to introduce an objectionable ontological subordinationism into the doctrine of the Trinity. We should therefore think of Christ’s sonship as a function of his incarnation, even if that role is assumed beginninglessly.

Criag argues that the Father begets on the Son solely at the incarnation “and not before ”even if that role is assumed beginninglessly.” Evangelical Prostestant Dr Roland Chia is the Chew Hock Hin Professor at Trinity Theological College (Singapore) and Theological and Research Advisor of the Ethos Institute for Public Christianity. He analyzes and refutes Craig’s position here in his excellent essay entitled “Reimagining the Godhead: William Lane Craig’s Altered Trinity” concluding that “Craig’s ontological Trinity therefore remains opaque, obscure and unknowable. But if that is indeed the case, what implications does this have for his own reconstruction of the Trinity?“

At the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (the flagship for Southern Baptists) I was taught that the distiction of persons within the one Trinitarian God is one of relationship: the Father eternally begets the Son and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from both Father and Son. Critics of Craig assert that his approach may diminish the equality of the three persons in the Godhead, challenging the classical doctrine established by early church councils.

Tony Arsenal regards Craig’s understanding with some alarm here, writing “we are talking about core and foundational doctrines which impact every other area of doctrine. It is not the case that our Trinitarian theology is separate from our apologetic. It is not the case that our doctrine of Scripture does not affect our soteriology.”

Thomas Gaston writes here that “While Craig contends that his formulation represents a biblical justification for the Trinity, the paper argues that his case is ultimately unconvincing.This article examines aspects of Craig’s argument, including his remarkable claim that the New Testament authors lacked the concept of the identity relation. I argue that whilst the New Testament authors affirmed one God, they did so in a sense different from that required for Craig’s ‘biblical’ doctrine of the Trinity.” 

James Gordon submitted a seminary essay here at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School critiquing Craig’s view of the Trinity. GotQuestions wrestles with the issue of the Father begetting the Son here correctly concluding that “This idea is further affirmed by the Nicene Creed, in which Jesus is described as “eternally begotten of the Father . . . begotten, not made.” This language, developed in fourth-century debates, emphasizes that, while the incarnate Son is dependent on the Father (John 6:57), He is both divine and eternal and not a created being. In this context, the phrase the only begotten of the Father does not imply a temporal event but an intimate, eternal relationship within the Godhead. This concept actually reinforces the doctrine of the Trinity, maintaining that Jesus Christ is both God and human without changing the nature of God.”

Catholic Brian Holdsworth also speaks out against Craig’s understanding of the Trinity here.

Craig is not a heretic. But I would characterize his understanding of the Trinity as an abberation and heterodox at best when contrasted with the understanding and teaching of the historic church.