I came across the above interesting debate between William Lane Craig and James White, in which several issues relating to Calvinism are brought up and discussed, including the origin of evil and the freewill of man. It is a long video, and I don’t intend to give it a full commentary. I will only briefly mention some highlights. The mistake that William Lane Craig makes is that he tries to defeat Calvinism with Molinism. Calvinism can only be defeated with scripture. Molinism doesn’t have the real answer to it. The following are the main points brought up in the discussion, that need to be commented on:
1. “Middle Knowledge” and “counterfactuals of freedom” (concepts employed by Molinism to counter Calvinism) are not biblically sound doctrines. They are contradicted by the theology taught in Genesis chapter 20 for example. They therefore cannot be used effectively to counter Calvinism.
2. The question of the origin of moral evil is another principle that is highlighted in the debate and discussed. That is something that I have already brought up and discussed several times in my previous blog posts, therefore there is no need to discuss it again here.
3. The question of why God allows moral evil to exist in the world is another issue that is brought up and discussed, to which William Lane Craig basically gives an incorrect or inaccurate answer. The biblical answer to that question is that mankind must be free to make wrong choices as well as right ones, or to commit evil acts as well as righteous acts, so that they can be “judged according to their works,” and be rewarded or punished accordingly, as taught in the Bible: “… they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (John 5:29). How could they be “judged” according to their “works” (good or bad) on judgment day (and be rewarded or punished accordingly), if they lacked the freedom and ability to do either?
4. The most important question that is brought up, however, which is the real question that James White is asking is, What is the source and origin of human “freewill”—if he has one? That is the real question that James White is asking—although he is not articulating it very well. His point is a valid one. His point is that if God made man out of nothing, then whatever “freewill” he has (if any) must have been manufactured, and therefore predetermined by its creator; therefore it cannot be totally “independent,” and therefore “free”. If God indeed made man out of nothing, then whatever “freedom” or “freewill” man may possess, cannot be totally independent from its creator—and therefore cannot be truly “free”. That is the point that James White is making—although he is not articulating it very well. That is a valid argument.
The Bible unfortunately does not give the answer to that question. The Bible indeed affirms the absolute moral agency and freewill of man, no doubts about it. But it doesn’t explain or address the philosophical question of where that moral agency and freewill originates from. Hence James White chooses to question its existence, following his Calvinistic model of thinking, rather than merely taking at face-value the biblical affirmation of its existence. But his questioning of it is based on a purely philosophical consideration, rather than a biblical one. If you start with the assumption that God made man out of nothing, then that dilemma becomes real and inevitable—notwithstanding the biblical affirmations of man’s moral agency and freewill. The solution to it unfortunately is not given in the Bible. The Bible does not give the answer to that question. The Bible affirms the absolute freewill and moral agency of man; but it does not explain where it originates from. The answer to that question is to be found only in the modern scriptures of the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Here is a quote:
Doctrine and Covenants 93:
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.
The correct answer to that dilemma is that God did not make man out of “nothing”. The “intelligent” part of man (whatever that is) was not created by God, it has always existed. The precise nature of this “intelligence,” or “light of truth” that was “not created or made, neither indeed can be” has not been revealed, and a lot of incorrect speculation has been made about it among Latter-day Saints in the past. But it does resolve the dilemma of the true origin and source of man’s freedom, or “freewill”. God didn’t make man out of nothing—contrary to the presuppositions of Calvinists and Molinists alike. That is the correct and ultimate answer to James Whites’ question. That video by the way has also been further discussed here, which is interesting to watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment