Can Philosophy Assist Theology?

 

I found the above short video in which William Lane Craig attempts to answer the question of whether philosophy can assist us in the development of Christian theology, or to what extent? The short answer to that is, Very little, or none! The most that a study of philosophy can do to assist us in the study and development of Christian theology is to discipline our minds to think more critically, rationally, and analytically; but it cannot provide actual answers to difficult theoretical questions. Theology is essentially a study of God; and God cannot be known or understood, except to the extent that he has chosen to reveal himself to us in scripture. So let us analyze more carefully what he has said, and how he develops his ideas. The full transcript of the video begins as follows:

“I have found that in Christian doctrine, in every major area of Christian theology, difficult and interesting philosophical questions arise. So whether we are talking about for example the doctrine of God, or doctrine of creation, or doctrine of Christ, or doctrine of salvation, philosophical issues arise that cannot always be answered biblically. So for example, the doctrine of God alone is just bristling with philosophical questions. The Bible says that God is eternal, but it doesn’t tell us whether God is timeless, or everlasting throughout all time?”

The answer is, that we can only know the answer to that question to the extent that God has chosen to reveal it to us in scripture. “Philosophy” cannot provide us with the answer to that question—unless it is a “philosophy” that has been revealed by God! In the absence of that, we will have to settle with the answers that God has given in scripture—that he is “eternal” (whatever that means)—and leave it at that. Latter-day Saints, however, are lucky, in that they have additional scripture besides the Bible, in which we can find answers to some of those difficult theological questions, to which the Bible does not provide a ready answer. The Book of Mormon provides us with this additional insight:

Alma 40:

8 Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise [from the dead] it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.

That answers his theological question. God is “eternal” in the sense that he is indeed timeless, or exists outside of time. But that is a revealed answer. It is not a “philosophical” answer. There is no “philosophy” in the world that can answer that question. There can only be a revealed answer—which Latter-day Saints are lucky to have—and he doesn’t! He then continues his narrative as follows:

“It tells us that God is all-powerful; but at the same time it says there are things that God cannot do, such as sin, or lie, or fall down and worship a false god. So in order to unfold and understand the biblical concept of God, we need to reflect on these biblical data philosophically as best we can.”

Not “philosophically,” but biblically, rationally, and analytically. The answer is that “omnipotence” is not the only attribute of God listed in scripture. Other divine attributes include justice, judgment, mercy, truth, holiness, and love. His divine attributes are not contradictory. He cannot exercise one attribute in such a way that violates his other attributes. He cannot exercise his attribute of omnipotence in such a way that it violates his attributes of justice, judgment, mercy, truth, holiness, or love. Divine attributes are not contradictory. That is plain reason. “Philosophy” has nothing to do with it. Thinking analytically and logically does. He then continues his narrative as follows:

“Similarly, in even doctrine of salvation for example, the Bible teaches that Christ died in our place to bear the punishment for sin that we deserved, thereby redeeming us from sin, and giving us a divine pardon. And that raises all sorts of questions about the justice of such a procedure. Is it just to punish an innocent third party for somebody else’s wrongdoing? Many people would say that is immoral, and therefore the doctrine of substitutionary Atonement cannot be true. And in order to deal with this, you can’t just quote Bible verses; you are going to explore interesting questions in the philosophy of law that will help to craft a biblical and defensible doctrine of the Atonement.”

There are several issues with that statement. Firstly, a lot depends on what he means by “substitutionary Atonement”. If he is referring to the Evangelical, Protestant, Reformed, or Calvinistic doctrine of Atonement, that is not biblical. The Bible does not teach unconditional election, Atonement, or redemption, nor “faith alone”. Those are the heresies of Calvinism and Reformed theology. The Atonement of Jesus Christ does not redeem mankind unconditionally, but only on condition of repentance. Secondly, the Atonement is an act of divine mercy, that makes it possible for those who have committed sins to repent of them and be forgiven, so that they will not be held accountable for them on judgment day. That is how the Atonement works. The Book of Mormon again provides us with the correct theological explanation:

Alma 42:

15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.

• • •

22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.

Alma 34:

14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

15 And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.

16 And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption.

Mosiah 15:

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son

• • •

8 And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men—

9 Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice.

2 Nephi 9:

26 For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel.

None of these, however, still answer the question of why an Atonement was necessary, to enable God to forgive sins? Why couldn’t God just forgive repentant sinners, without the need for an “Atonement?” That is a question that neither the Bible, nor the Book of Mormon give a direct, clear answer to. The closest to answering it that the Book of Mormon gets is that the Atonement of Jesus Christ brings about the “bowels of mercy” (Alma 34:15; Mosiah 15:9). In other words, the mercy of God could not have been extended towards repentant sinners, so that they could be forgiven of their sins, without an Atonement. But it doesn’t explain why that was necessary. I can forgive someone who has sinned against me without the need for an “atonement;” so why couldn’t God do the same? If I can do it, why can’t God do it? Why did he need an Atonement to be made for him to be able to forgive sins? The answer to that question can only be obtained by a direct revelation from God. There is no “philosophy” that can answer that question.

Luckily, Latter-day Saints have that too! The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s only true Church on earth that is led by revelation, by true prophets and Apostles; and is therefore able to receive revelation, and add scripture to the Canon. So if he really wants to obtain the answer to that question (by a revelation from God), that would be his only option. He can write a letter to the President of the Church, or to the First Presidency of the Church, and ask them very kindly if they would obtain a special revelation from the Lord to answer that theological question for him. But he would have to be extremely humble, submissive, meek, gentle, and believing to get one. He cannot expect to obtain an answer from the Lord if he is arrogant, or proud, or conceited, or contentious, or unbelieving. Even then, there is still no guarantee that an answer by revelation would be given. The problem is that if such an answer by revelation were to be given to him, then millions of people around the world might want one as well, and the Church would be inundated with such requests. So he would have to be very lucky to get such an answer. But we are living in unusual times, and he may be lucky enough to get one! But he would have to be extremely meek, humble, submissive and gentle—and believing to get one—otherwise he doesn’t stand a chance. He can always try! He then continues his narrative as follows:

“And on, and on, and on it goes. The Trinity would be another example of a doctrine that needs to be understood philosophically, or the doctrine of the Deity of Christ—Christ having a complete human nature and a complete divine nature. How do you put those together? Well that is a philosophical question once again. So over and over again important Christian doctrines raise significant and interesting philosophical questions that we need to reflect upon. We can’t just bury our heads in the sand and pretend that such questions don’t exist.”

They can be described as “philosophical” questions only in the sense that they are thoughtful questions. It doesn’t mean that a study of “philosophy” can actually provide the answer to those questions. They are essentially theological questions, the answers to which can only be found in the revelations of God—either in existing revelation (i.e. canonized scriptures of the Church)—or by a new revelation from God, which only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can provide—according to the will of the Lord as may be required—or according to our faith.