|
RenewingMinds
|
THE DEATH OF TRUTH
WHAT'S WRONG WITH MULTICULTURALISM, THE REJECTION OF REASON, AND THE NEW POSTMODERN DIVERSITY
Before directing you to the Crossroad Project and their superb book site, we want to call your attention to some weaknesses we identified while reading The Death of Truth. Our desire is to answer questions from those who ask and to hopefully see this great book become even better in future editions.
1) In Chapters 2, 3, & 4, Jim Leffel does an excellent job contrasting Modernism, Postmodernism, and Theism. However, in his charts beginning on page 21, he fails to clearly differentiate between human volition and the age-old myth of free will. Martin Luther knew better! His definition under Theism states:
Human free will has been drastically diminished by a moral fall from grace, but people are still responsible for the use of their remaining free will. The desire to be autonomous is sinful -- we were created to depend on God.
Minus any discussion of the subject of baptism, Leffel's definition and use of "free will" appears similar to the Roman Catholic's position at both the Second Council of Orange (529 AD) and the Council of Trent (1547 AD). (1)
Human responsibility can be maintained without adopting presuppositions of indeterminism. However, it is critical that fundamental and evangelical Christians be careful how they use the adjective "free," when making reference to human volition -- either before or after conversion. Positing free will may successfully counter naturalistic and mechanistic arguments, but it undermines the message of the Gospel. Voluntary giving, yes; "free will offering," no! The inaccurate use of the word "free" reinforces the deception that the creature was, is, or can be autonomous. Contrary to Satan's tempt of Eve in the Garden, God alone is Autonomous. As the author and advocate of rebellion, Satan has continued to deceive unregenerate mankind (and many regenerates as well!) into believing that they are indeed in Modernist terms absolutely "free to choose their own direction." This stands in contrast to the Scriptural truth that mankind, born in the image of Adam (Genesis 5:3) is in bondage (slavery) to sin, cf. Romans 6:17. The myth of free will is a 'second-cause' obstacle to persuading sinners of their need for the Savior, as well as leading believers into new-creation-based, spiritual growth. The root problem of today's so-called "easy-believism" and rise of "Lordship salvation" is not the lack of dedication or commitment, but the absence of a genuine conviction of both SIN and SINS. See suggested changes below.
2) In Chapter 14, under the heading The Lesson of Theological Liberalism (page 236), Dennis McCallum offers the explanation of "accommodation" for the rise of theological liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, and today's problems amongst evangelicals. While what he says is largely true, it disappointingly omits any discussion of the essential role of Christian humanism as the link between Enlightenment errors and modern-day cultural and religious problems. Why should this fact be hidden from readers when some Christian humanists are eager to take credit for the link? As Methodist Thomas Langford so proudly and eloquently states:
...the Enlightenment challenged inherited convictions about God and affirmed the radical independence and competent rationality of human beings. Hence autonomous rational people came to be the chief assured reality.
...the Wesleyan movement came into existence during the Enlightenment and therefore, from the beginning, has carried a [this] modern sensibility.
Now, is it any wonder why the United Methodist denomination became the ultra-liberal, religious haunt of Modernism?
3) Theological doctrines have practical consequences. In Chapter 15 (page 267), McCallum further makes a universal application of John 16: 8-11 in conjunction with Romans 1:19. Interpreting these two sections of the Word together, he implies that ALL "people know in their heart that truth exists, that they are separate from their Creator, and that they need personal conversion." This appears to be the Wesleyan error of "prevenient or common grace," which detrimentally affects one's evangelistic method. In our opinion, this view mitigates the truth of spiritual blindness spoken of in 2 Corinthians 4:4. and thus minimizes the ruin of the Fall. (We have subsequently discovered that both Jim Leffel and Dennis McCallum have embraced the free will philosophy developed by Professor Alvin Plantinga*, Director for the Center for Philosophy of Religion at University of Notre Dame. For example, see McCallum's statements in The Problem of Evil, II. Christian Responses).
As a proposal, we have reworded the section on page 21, entitled FREE WILL as follows:
HUMAN WILL (Autonomy)
Modernism: Humans are self-determining and are largely free to choose their own direction (free will).
Postmodernism: People are the product of their culture and only imagine they have free will. Consciously or unconsciously, their decisions are typically a reflection of their culture.
Theism: Humans possess the power of choice (volition or self-determination), but the will is not free. Yet, people are still responsible for their choices. Man was created in a state of obedience. By an act of disobedience (the Fall), the human will became inclined toward independence from the Creator -- which is "sin". As "lost", man is dead unto God and held captive by a sinful nature. The desire to be autonomous is an expression of rebellion. We were created to depend on God.
(1)
Gentlemen:
The Roman Catholic Council of Orange (529 AD) states: "... free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man..." and "For he [the Pelagian] denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man..." The Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1547 AD) restates: "...though free will, weakened as it was in its powers and downward bent, was by no means extinguished in them."
On page 21 of Death of Truth, Mr. Leffel states: "Human free will has been drastically diminished by a moral fall from grace, but people are still responsible for the use of their remaining free will."
Would you please explain whether Mr. Leffel's statement should be viewed as either affirming or differing with these two Roman Catholic Council statements.
By His grace and mercy,
Dan R. Smedra
Response
Dear Dan S,
Thanks for your inquiry asking clarification for my statement in The Death of Truth regarding the nature of free will. I'm not entirely sure how to respond to your question--how much detail to go into or how much explanation you're interested in. I'll just give a thumb nail sketch of my position and if you'd like more discussion or clarification, I'm happy to dialogue with you.
Having specialized in ancient and medieval philosophy, I am a bit cautious about ascribing much authority to the Council pronouncements. Indeed, each of those cited (Council of Orange and Council of Trent) have been interpreted variously even by Roman Catholic theologians. For an excellent treatment of the debates that surround the meaning of these Council affirmations, see Garrigou-Lagrange, Predestination (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1950). The statement that most closely represents my view is, "free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man. . .", taken from the Council of Orange. However, this statement is highly ambiguous as it stands. I have some serious reservations about the philosophy that motivated it and the theology that, in key respects, is rooted in it. This and other affirmations about the nature and extent of free will were rooted in a rejection of Pelagianism (of which we know nothing, except through the Augustinian filter) and the philosophical position taken by Augustine in De libero arbitrio voluntatis.
Regarding Augustine's position on free will, it seems to have been rooted almost exclusively not in biblical exegesis, but in philosophical dilemmas surrounding Aristotle's Categories, ch. 9 where he discusses the truth value of the law of excluded middle as it relates to future contingent propositions. Subsequent commentaries on this chapter by Roman Stoics, especially Cicero's De fato, led Augustine and others to conclude that if God is to have perfect knowledge of the future, propositions about the future must have a fixed and determined truth value, which, they concluded, precluded free will. Philosophical fatalism thus became theological fatalism.
In that the Reformers by in large adopted theological fatalism and tied it to the doctrines of original sin and total depravity, this statement cited from the Council of Orange has been taken by most protestants as an affirmation of their position. This type of thinking can be seen perhaps most clearly in the works of theologians such as Gordon Clark, Religion, Reason and Revelation (Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1986), 194ff.
While I accept the proposition that "free will has been manifestly corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man," I do not accept the presumption of theological fatalism. The relationship of divine sovereignty, foreknowledge, human freedom and moral responsibility remains a mystery. Yet, it seems to me, the Bible consistently affirms them all. Further, I do not think that the arguments for theological fatalism are convincing in the least. I see no logical contradiction between free will and divine sovereignty and foreknowledge. My view is essentially like Alvin Plantinga's* in his numerous essays on this subject.
Dan, I hope I've given you the kind of response you were looking for. Again, these exchanges can be quite helpful in clarifying issues and cultivating Christian unity. Please don't hesitate to respond.
God Bless, Jim Leffel*, Director -- The Crossroads Project
*see below
Dear Jim:
Thank you for your response. However, I am still unclear regarding how your position (and Xenos) differ from the Catholic and your definition of Reformed "theological fatalism". Consequently, upon your advice, I have begun reading Gordon Clark's section on God and Evil that you mentioned. Further, I will attempt to better familiarize myself with Alvin Plantinga*. Also sitting on my desk is an unread copy of John S. Feinberg's, The Many Faces of Evil. I very briefly scanned his comments regarding Plantinga (pp. 63-83). I surely thank my Lord Jesus Christ that having endowed me with only half a brain, He ensured that I would maintain the necessary level of dependence upon Him in my journey into truth.
Dan R. Smedra
* Jim Leffel teaches philosophy at Ohio Dominican College, a Catholic liberal arts college. The college's mission statement states:
Ohio Dominican College is guided in its educational mission by the Dominican motto: to contemplate truth and to share with others the fruits of this contemplation. Truth is the basis of human freedom and the source of human effectiveness. Truth is dynamic, an infinite realm in which the person grows throughout life to the fullness of his or her humanity through progressive realization of the significance of old truths and progressive attainment of new truths. Truth can be found in all cultures and traditions, in the whole range of the arts and sciences, and, in a special way, in religious faith and mankind's theological reflection on faith.
Professor Alvin Plantinga is the Director for the Center for Philosophy of Religion at the Catholic, University of Notre Dame. John S. Feinberg writes, "...no one has done more to develop and defend the free will defense than Alvin Plantinga. He not only answers [Anthony] Flew and [J.L.] Mackie, but also gives the free will defense its most complicated and sophisticated expression, an expression that has convinced many." The Many Faces of Evil, Zondervan, 1994.
Mail this page to a friend- SEATED
- ASCENDED
- RAISED
- BURIED
- CRUCIFIED
