William Lane Craig and Trinity

[arapahoepark]

Saw this in an article on the Aquila Report:

His inquiries have even led him into minor unorthodoxies, including a disagreement with the Nicene Creed on the details of the Trinity.

Does anyone know anything about it?

 

[Gforce9]

I can't speak to that directly. Dr. Craig is a very intelligent and studied man.....far more than I ever will be. He has embraced de Molina's middle knowledge, however, and in so doing, denies the omniscience of God. In light of that, it would not surprise me if it were so.......

 

[Supersillymanable]

in so doing, denies the omniscience of God.

I like Lane Craig despite his short comings, but from what I understood of his position on Molinism, it didn't deny God's omniscience or foreknowledge at all... Could you explain?

Admittedly, I also didn't think he had any problems with the nicene creed and the Trinity... I'd be interested to hear what others have to say on this topic..

 

[Gforce9]

Lawrence,
Middle knowledge at it's very basic is a way to explain God being God (which in my opinion falls apart rather quickly) and man being totally free. It was not "come to" by good and careful study, but by a particular desire. It is said by it's proponents to be an "addition" to the doctrine of omniscience and not a subtraction, but it clearly is a subtraction. If God knows all things inerrantly, infallibly, has ordained them, then middle knowledge is just an old rusty car up on blocks in the back of a country property, having zero value monetarily or in beauty......it has no purpose or function. If God does not know all things inerrantly and infallibly, he is not who he says he is....it is a frontal attack on the character of God. That is the seriousness in error of middle knowledge........

 

[Supersillymanable]

Hey Greg,

I understand Molinism is error and is wrong. I'm no fan of it. Craig has made the common fault of making the Bible subject to his philosophy as far as I can tell. I simply don't think that the beliefs Craig holds denies the omniscience of God. I seriously doubt he would affirm that statement of belief. I am fairly certain he would say God know everything. He knows everything that is going to happen and everything that is. I'm simply trying to be charitable to his views. It's one thing to say his understanding of God sovereignty is unbiblical (which it is), it's another to say that he denies Gods omniscience, which is heresy.

 

[yeutter]

Ed Feser, a conservative Roman Catholic philospher, has written about his concern that William Lane Craig has diverged from classical Theism. Feser also has concerns about where Craig comes down on divine simplicity. You can read Feser at http://www.edwardfeser.blogspot.com

 

[Gforce9]

Hey Greg,

I understand Molinism is error and is wrong. I'm no fan of it. Craig has made the common fault of making the Bible subject to his philosophy as far as I can tell. I simply don't think that the beliefs Craig holds denies the omniscience of God. I seriously doubt he would affirm that statement of belief. I am fairly certain he would say God know everything....... It's one thing to say his understanding of God sovereignty is unbiblical (which it is), it's another to say that he denies Gods omniscience, which is heresy.

First, I apologize to Trent for a veering off course here. Two quick things:

1- My original point was this: If he can go off course so dramatically in one area, it is easier to understand a second course deviation.

2- I will open a thread dedicated to middle knowledge.....

 

[Semper Fidelis]

There are times when I enjoy listening to Craig but I have significant concerns about his theology. His fundamental departure from classical orthodoxy begins with a view that our knowledge and God's knowledge are univocal. That is to say that we understand things, as a creature, in the same manner that the Creator does. Consequently, when he speaks about the things of God he will combine philosophical standards of what man may attain by the application of reason with revelation and, when revelation seems to stop, he'll supplement revelation with what he believes about God. Hence, you'll hear him talk about the goodness of God in a philosophical context and judge what is "good" on the basis of a philsophical ideal and then apply those concepts to God such that a revealed doctrine like election has to bend the knee to a pre-determined sense of what is "good". His view of middle knowledge, in my view, is an attempt to "rescue" God from a human understanding of good where God can only be seen as "bad" if one views God's decree as not depending upon the autonomous will of the creature. Any sense in which the will of the creature is subject to God's decree is viewed as "bad" on philosophical grounds and, hence, revelation must bow to the sense of what good is from man's understanding (since, again, man's understanding of good is univocal with God's).

When speaking about God, he'll say that God was immutable before Creation but becomes mutable with respect to Creation. He thus denies the immutability of God as an attribute.

Craig really gets into trouble with respect to analogies. Where the Creeds of Christendom have always maintained a respect for the Creator/creature distinction and the uniqueness of God, Craig seems comfortable with making analogies that are heretical in their outworking. In one instance, at a Veritas forum, he presented the three headed dog that guards Hades in Greek mythology as a helpful way of understanding the three persons of the trinity. In another analogy he was asked to give an analogy for the Hypostatic union and he gave the example of the movie Avatar where the mind of a man enters the shell of an alien being. Once again, because Craig views human philosophical inquiry and its conclusions as univocal with the mind of God, he draws analogies that careful theologians in the past were wont to avoid given the respect that the Creator may only be understood by Revelation and that, even what he reveals, is intended to be understood to be a condescension to human understanding but can never exhaust the meaning such that we are free to move beyond revelation.

 

[arapahoepark]

What is divine simplicity? I have heard it but, am not familiar with what it exactly is.

 

[Gforce9]

Trent,
Feast your soul on this...Sinclair Ferguson explains it here so masterfully...it is worth every minute:

Message 12, The Lord Our God, The Lord is One: The Simplicity of God from A Portrait of God: 2004 National Conference Conference by Various Teachers from Ligonier Ministries

 

[Semper Fidelis]

What is divine simplicity? I have heard it but, am not familiar with what it exactly is.

2. THE UNITAS SIMPLICITATIS.

While the unity discussed in the preceding sets God apart from other beings, the perfection now under consideration is expressive of the inner and qualitative unity of the Divine Being. When we speak of the simplicity of God, we use the term to describe the state or quality of being simple, the condition of being free from division into parts, and therefore from compositeness. It means that God is not composite and is not susceptible of division in any sense of the word. This implies among other things that the three Persons in the Godhead are not so many parts of which the Divine essence is composed, that God’s essence and perfections are not distinct, and that the attributes are not superadded to His essence. Since the two are one, the Bible can speak of God as light and life, as righteousness and love, thus identifying Him with His perfections. The simplicity of God follows from some of His other perfections; from His Self-existence, which excludes the idea that something preceded Him, as in the case of compounds; and from His immutability, which could not be predicated of His nature, if it were made up of parts. This perfection was disputed during the Middle Ages, and was denied by Socinians and Arminians. Scripture does not explicitly assert it, but implies it where it speaks of God as righteousness, truth, wisdom, light, life, love, and so on, and thus indicates that each of these properties, because of their absolute perfection, is identical with His Being. In recent works on theology the simplicity of God is seldom mentioned. Many theologians positively deny it, either because it is regarded as a purely metaphysical abstraction, or because, in their estimation, it conflicts with the doctrine of the Trinity. Dabney believes that there is no composition in the substance of God, but denies that in Him substance and attributes are one and the same. He claims that God is no more simple in that respect than finite spirits.

Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (p. 62). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.

 

[RamistThomist]

Craig also rejected dyotheletism in Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview, though he cowrote that with JP Moreland; I don't know who wrote the chapter on Christ's will(s).

 

[Matthew Willard Lankford]

Craig uses Cerberus (the three headed hound of Greek mythology) as a possible illustration of the Trinity. See Dr. James White's response: Today on the Dividing Line: Apologetic Methodology, Cerberus, the Trinity Box, and Muslims, Today on the Dividing Line: Examination and Response to Yesterday's Reasonable Faith Podcast

 

[py3ak]

Craig uses Cerberus (the three headed hound of Greek mythology) as a possible illustration of the Trinity. See Dr. James White's response: Today on the Dividing Line: Apologetic Methodology, Cerberus, the Trinity Box, and Muslims, Today on the Dividing Line: Examination and Response to Yesterday's Reasonable Faith Podcast

That was one of Servetus' most horrid blasphemies. I'm not sure that "appalling" is a strong enough term for the serious illustrative use of such a comparison.