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.

William Lane Craig Misrepresents Islam!

 

I came across the above video by William Lane Craig titled: “Islam & Perfect Being Theology,” in which he brings the typical Evangelical accusation against Islam, that the God of Islam is not a “God of love”. Here is the transcript:

“According to perfect being theology, God is a maximally great being; and that resonates immediately with Muslims: The greatness of God, “Allah Akbar,” “God is great;” and so there is common ground here between Christians and Muslims with respect to God’s greatness. And I think that this can help the Muslim to refine his concept of God consistent with God’s maximal greatness. One of the problems that I have with a Muslim concept of God is that Allah seems to be morally defective. He is not an all-loving being. He only loves those who first love him. And so over, and over, and over again in the Koran we read about those whom Allah does not love. He only loves faithful Muslims. If they will love him, then he will love them in return, and that is a morally defective concept of God. And so I would appeal to the Muslim to revise his concept of God, to make it consistent with God’s being truly maximally great, and therefore morally perfect, and all-loving.”

I had previously discussed the subject of the love of God in Islam in two earlier blog posts which can be seen here and here, therefore there is no need to discuss it in further detail in this post. As far as God “hating” people is concerned, there are plenty of Bible verses affirming that God loves the righteous, and hates the wicked, the sinners, the unrighteous, of which the following are a few examples:

Leviticus 20:

23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

Leviticus 26:

30 And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you.

Deuteronomy 18:

12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

Deuteronomy 22:

5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

Psalm 5:

5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Psalm 5:

6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the Lord will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

Psalm 11:

5 The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Psalm 106:

40 Therefore was the wrath of the Lord kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance.

Jeremiah 12:

8 Mine heritage is unto me as a lion in the forest; it crieth out against me: therefore have I hated it.

Jeremiah 14:

19 Hast thou utterly rejected Judah? hath thy soul lothed Zion? why hast thou smitten us, and there is no healing for us? we looked for peace, and there is no good; and for the time of healing, and behold trouble!

Hosea 9:

15 All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.

Malachi 1:

2 I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob,

3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Romans 9:

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

According to the words of Jesus, the greatest commandment of all is to love God with all one’s heart, might, mind, and strength (Matthew 22:34–38; Mark 12:28–30; Luke 10:25–28). If that be the case, then not loving God is breaking the greatest of all the commandments of God, and qualifies one for the condemnation and disapproval of God above all else, according to the verses quoted above. And the Bible does indeed teach that God loves those who love him:

Proverbs 8:

17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.

So it looks like the Quran is spot on as far as its theology of “loving God” is concerned. God loves those who love him, and abhors those who hate him. His problem is that he doesn’t know his Bible very well; and his theology is based more on philosophy than the Bible. There is no such thing as a “perfect being theology”. That is his philosophical innovation. A theology is either biblical, or it isn’t. If it is biblical, then it is sound Christian theology, otherwise it isn’t.

William Lane Craig Misrepresents Mormonism!

 

I found the above short clip By William Lane Craig in criticism of the LDS doctrine of God, the transcript of which is as follows:

“Perfect Being theology really needs to be developed by Mormon theologians, because Mormonism has a very defective concept of God. For Mormons, God is a finite, material, humanoid being who lives on a planet in outer space, and controls the universe. It is a form of a grossly materialistic polytheism; and this God was begotten by procreation from gods that existed before him, and they are from gods before them, back and back to eternity. So this is a really crass form of polytheism, once you really understand Mormon theology, and therefore just terribly deficient. The whole Mormon concept of God needs to be re-conceived in light of God’s maximal greatness.”

There are several issues with that statement. Firstly, while it is true that Joseph Smith taught that God the Father was once a man who progressed to become God, he never gave a proper revelatory statement to the Church on the subject, and it is not part of canonized scriptures of the Church, and therefore it is not strictly official Church doctrine. Most Latter-day Saints (including myself) believe it to be true; but until a proper revelatory statement is given about it, and it is canonized as scripture, it cannot be strictly regarded as official Church doctrine.

Secondly, although Joseph Smith taught that God the Father was once a man who progressed to become God, he did not explain how the process started. He did not teach an “infinite regression of the Gods”. That was speculation that was subsequently added to it by others. He did not explain, or claim to know, how the process began.

Thirdly, William’s claim that belief in this doctrine turns God into a “finite, material, humanoid being who lives on a planet in outer space …,” as he has expressed it, is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. Was not Jesus once a man who is also God? Was he not born as a human, grew to manhood, ate, drank, slept, walked, talked, preached, was crucified, died, was resurrected, ascended to heaven, and will return to earth again in the same way that he ascended? Is not that what the Bible teaches (Acts 1:10-12)? Does Jesus still not have his physical resurrected body; and is he not going to return and reign on earth during the Millennium with that same glorified resurrected physical body? Is he not going to judge the living and the dead after the resurrection with that same physical body? Does he not now dwell in heaven with a physical resurrected body, and is he not going to retain that glorified and resurrected physical body for the rest of eternity? Whether he now lives on a “planet” in heaven somewhere or not, I have no idea; but he must be living somewhere, if he still has, and always will have a physical resurrected body. Is he not fully divine—is he not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent etc., and fully perfect in all his attributes—while still retaining his physical resurrected body in heaven? Does his resurrected physical body prevent him in any way from possessing and maintaining those divine attributes? Did he not appear to his disciples after his resurrection, with his resurrected body, saying, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18)? According to William Lane Craig, however, that makes Jesus into a “finite, material, humanoid being,” and is a form of “grossly materialistic polytheism”! In other words he hasn’t a clue what he is talking about.

Fourthly, the LDS doctrine of the deification of man (and by extension, of plurality of gods), is not an anomaly in the history of Christianity. Deification or theosis was a widely held belief in the early Christian church, and was extensively taught and written about by the Early Church Fathers, from the first century to the eighth century and beyond. I have provided plenty of examples here. Now that is not the same as “polytheism”. Polytheism means worshiping more than one God. In LDS theology, deification is an expression of salvation and exaltation in the celestial kingdom of God. To be saved in the celestial kingdom of God is to be deified. It doesn’t mean that those who are so deified become supreme beings independent of God the Father and the Son. They will continue to be subject to and subordinate to them, and will continue to worship them in the eternities to come. In the theology of Latter-day Saints, however, deification entails acquiring all the attributes of divinity, such as infinity, eternity, everlastingness; omnipotence, omniscience etc. See Doctrine and Covenants 76:58-70; 132:20-24—which also finds biblical support in John 17:20-23; 2 Peter 1:4; 1 John 3:2.

And lastly, Latter-day Saints don’t need William Lane Craig to come and teach them the correct theology pertaining to the character, perfections, glory, and attributes of God. The mighty prophet Joseph Smith has already provided them with one by divine revelation and inspiration from heaven, which is infinitely superior to anything that he, or any other uninspired human theologian could ever produce. It is known as the Lecturers on Faith, and has been published by several publishers in the past, including by myself. I consider my edition to be the best, and it is the one that I would recommend him to read. It can be seen in the side-panel in this blog. It is available in paperback and hardcover editions, as well as digitally for the Amazon Kindle. It is a small booklet (90 pages long, including introduction etc.); and it is the greatest treatise on Christian theology that has ever been produced by anyone since Christianity came into existence. I would recommend him to carefully read it, and use and apply it.

What Atheists and Calvinists Have in Common!

 

They both believe in determinism—no freewill! The only difference is that atheists believe in determinism caused by random evolutionary processes; whereas Calvinists believe in determinism brought about by the unalterable decrees of God. But the end result is the same—no human freewill! I came across the above short discussion between Alex O’Connor (atheist), advocating determinism; and Ben Shapiro (Orthodox Jew), supporting freewill.

The problem with such debates is that the freewill advocates, like Ben Shapiro, are at a disadvantage in defending their theological position, because they don’t have enough revealed knowledge about the facts of creation (as Ben Shapiro later admits) to be able to successfully do so (and Latter-day Saints do!).

If you start from the atheist perspective (that everything is determined by random evolutionary processes), they have a valid point—there can be no freewill. But then on the other hand, if you start with the Calvinist theological position (that God made everything out of nothing), there can be no freewill either—because how man acts or behaves will in the end depend on how God created or manufactured him (out of nothing). If God made man out of nothing, then determinism is the only logical conclusion.

Latter-day Saints are lucky, they have additional knowledge revealed to them that others don’t have. Modern LDS revelation informs us that the intelligent part of man was not created, but has always existed:

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 precise nature of that “Intelligence,” or “light of truth,” which was “not created or made,” has not been revealed; and in the past there has been some unjustified speculation about it among Latter–day Saints. But putting aside the speculations, there is the obvious assertion that the “intelligent component” of human existence (whatever that is), is not created, but has always existed. That solves the problem of moral agency, accountability, and human freewill, from an LDS theological perspective. Ben Shapiro does a good job of defending the doctrine of human freewill from a deistic point of view—by appealing to a lack of sufficient revealed information on the subject. The following exchange between Ben and Alex takes place right at the end of the video, starting at 10:18 minutes (emphasis added):

Ben:

“But now you are falling into the same sort of argument that I excluded at the beginning, which was, I said that the beauty of religion is that there is a bunch of stuff I don’t understand; so I can’t explain to you how the uncaused self makes decisions.”

Alex:

“Well then, I can’t explain to you how the uncaused self exists in an atheist environment.”

Ben:

“You have a burden and I don’t, meaning that … I mean the simple fact is that you are the one who is claiming that a reasonable materialist universe is the cause of all; and so if that is the case, you do have to explain the mechanism in a way that I certainly do not. My entire philosophy rests on the positing of an entire realm of things I don’t understand, in terms of their interaction with the world. Now as I said at the very beginning, that leaves me a giant escape hatch; I am not going to pretend that that is not a giant escape hatch; it acts in practice as a giant escape hatch.”

Like I said, he does a good job of defending his theological position, in the absence of sufficient information on the subject; but the additional insight into the subject provided in LDS revelation, as outlined above, would enable him to do an even more effective job in defending that theological position. Ben Shapiro then concludes his remarks as follows:

Ben:

“It also tends to act as a fundamental principle of faith, right; again, in every moral realm, right; when we get to the problem of good and evil, right—one of the big questions is, Well, how can God allow evil to take place in the world; and the fundamental religious answer, as it has been for thousands of years is, my mind is not God’s, which is a giant escape hatch. It also happens to be true from a religious point of view.”

Well, I have good news for him. There is a perfectly good, adequate, convincing, biblical explanation for the presence of evil in the world. The answer is given in the following verses (among others):

John 5:

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Acts 17:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Colossians 3:

25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.

1 Peter 1:

17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

Revelation 20:

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

The Bible makes it clear that the purpose of this (brief) period of mortality is to test mankind to see who will do good and who will do evil, so that they can then be judged for their actions in this life (good or bad), and be rewarded or punished accordingly. How could God judge mankind for the good or evil that they have done in this life, if they were not free to do good or evil? Modern LDS scripture adds another interesting insight to that:

Doctrine and Covenants 29:

39 And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet.

Without the temptations of the devil, mankind would not be able to choose between good and evil. God wants mankind to be able to (freely) choose between good and evil, so that they can be judged, and the judgment that God will bring upon them will be just—hence the need for the temptations of the devil. God by his Spirit persuades them to do good (John 1:9; Romans 2:6-16), while the devil by his evil spirit persuades them to do evil. There will be no more temptations of the devil in heaven—or even during the Millennium, for the most part (Rev. 20:1-3).

Another important consideration that that question does not take into account is that this present state of the world that we are now experiencing is very short, compared to the rest of eternity. It is not something that is going to continue forever. Once this (brief) testing period is over, we will enter into an eternal state where we will each receive the just consequences of our actions in this life; and where the present state of affairs no longer continues.

Evil must necessarily exist in this brief period of mortality, so that mankind can then be judged for the good or evil that they have done, and the judgment that God will bring upon them on judgment day will be just. The good news is that it won’t last very long. This brief period of mortality is a nanosecond compared to the rest of eternity—but it determines for us how the rest of that eternity will be spent.