I just listened
to the Kwaku El/Jeremy Howard debate:
I previously wrote a lengthy review of Kwaku's previous moderated debate with Aaron Shafovaloff. One can read it here:
In his previous debate, Kwaku won this debate; in this recent debate, it was a draw. Kwaku did a good job, but let Jeremy get away with exegetical murder, such as his nonsensical understanding of Acts 7:55-56 during the audience questions.
Instead of writing a full, point by point review, I will just list some resources on the main issues discussed.
Jeremy made
a number of assumptions which he either never backed up, or used eisegesis to
support such (e.g., his bogus claim Rom 4:17 supports creation ex nihilo):
In his opening
statement, Jeremy, among other things:
1. Assumes
(never defends) the belief that "spirit" is immaterial (e.g., during his opening statement and Kwaku's portion of the cross-ex) and, related
to such,
2 Never addresses texts that, exegetically, support divine embodiment (e.g., Gen 1:26-27; Heb 1:3 [Jeremy mentions this verse in his rebuttal but ignores its imlications]). See:
2 Never addresses texts that, exegetically, support divine embodiment (e.g., Gen 1:26-27; Heb 1:3 [Jeremy mentions this verse in his rebuttal but ignores its imlications]). See:
D. Charles Pyle on Hosea 11:9 (cf. Numbers 23:19)
Does Jeremiah 23:24 pose problems for LDS theology?
Does Jeremiah 23:24 pose problems for LDS theology?
Psalm 139:7 and Latter-day Saint Theology
Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism" (exegetes Isa 43:10; 44:6, 8 and other relevant texts; cf. C.J. Labuschagne on the language of "incomparability" in the Old Testament and Literature of Surrounding Cultures)
Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism" (exegetes Isa 43:10; 44:6, 8 and other relevant texts; cf. C.J. Labuschagne on the language of "incomparability" in the Old Testament and Literature of Surrounding Cultures)
Books: Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, Volume 3: Of God and Gods
D. Charles Pyle, I Have Said Ye are Gods: Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament (Revised and Supplemented)
3. Assumes
that when the Bible speaks of God “creating,” he reads into that “ex nihilo.”
See:
Blake T. Ostler, Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought
Daniel O. McClellan, James Patrick Holding refuted on Creation Ex Nihilo
Blake T. Ostler, Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought
Daniel O. McClellan, James Patrick Holding refuted on Creation Ex Nihilo
With respect to Rom 4:17, as Blake wrote in his article, Paul is speaking of the future resurrection:
Romans 4:17. Copan and Craig next cite Romans 4:17 KJV: "even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were (καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄνταὡς ὄντα)." There are two possible translations of Romans 4:17. The majority translation does not entail creation out of nothing: "[Abraham] is our father in the presence of God whom he believed—the God who makes the dead alive and summons the things that do not yet exist as though they already do."[15] Another translation indicates that God "calls into existence the things which do not exist" (New American Bible, NAB). The first translation is preferred for several reasons. First, Keith Norman has pointed out that it is contradictory for God to call to that which does not exist.[16] Second, as Moo stated, "this interpretation fits the immediate context better than a reference to God's creative power, for it explains the assurance with which God can speak of the 'many nations' that will be descended from Abraham."[17] Thus, the preferred translation merely states that God summons the future reality of the resurrection as if it already existed. This seems to me to be a far better fit with the context.
Third, as Hubler comments: "The verse's 'non-existent' need not be understood in an absolute sense of non-being. μὴ ὄντα (mē onta) refers to the previous non-existence of those things which are now brought into existence. There is no direct reference to the absence or presence of a material cause."[18] In other words, the Greek text suggests the view that God has brought about a thing that did not existas that thing before it was so created. For example, this use of μὴ ὄντα is logically consistent with the proposition that "God called forth the earth when before that the earth did not exist." However, the fact that the earth did not exist as the earth before it was so created does not address the type of material that was used to make it.
Note also that Romans 4:17 uses the negative μή, which refers to merely relative nonbeing and not to absolute nothing, as required by the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. At this point it is important to understand a bit about the ancient concept of matter in the Greek-speaking world and the distinction between relative nonbeing (Greek μὴ ὄντα) and absolute nothing (Greek οὐκ ὄντως). Platonic philosophy—both Neoplatonism and Middle Platonism—posited the existence of an eternal substratum that was material but was nevertheless so removed from the One Ground of Being that it was often said to not have "real" existence. As Jonathan Goldstein observes: "Platonists called pre-existent matter 'the non-existent.'"[19] This relative nonexistence is indicated by the Greek negative μή, meaning "not" or "non-," in conjunction with the word for existence or being.[20] When the early Christian theologians speak of creation that denies that there was any material state prior to creation, however, they use the Greek negation ουκ, meaning "not in any way or mode." As Henry Chadwick explained the usage in Clement's Stromata: "In each case the phrase he employs is ek me ontos not ex ouk ontos; that is to say, it is made not from that which is absolutely non-existent, but from relative non-being or unformed matter, so shadowy and vague that it cannot be said to have the status of 'being', which is imparted to it by the shaping hand of the Creator."[21] Edwin Hatch explained that, for Platonists, "God was regarded as being outside the world. The world was in its origin only potential being (το μὴ ὄν)."[22] He explains more fully:
The [Platonic] dualistic hypothesis assumed a co-existence of matter and God. The assumption was more frequently tacit than explicit. . . . There was a universal belief that beneath the qualities of all existing things lay a substratum or substance on which they were grafted, and which gave to each thing its unity. But the conception of the nature of this substance varied from that of gross and tangible material to that of empty and formless space. . . . It was sometimes conceived as a vast shapeless but plastic mass, to which the Creator gave form, partly by moulding it as a potter moulds clay, partly by combining various elements as a builder combines his materials in the construction of a house.[23]
Aristotle wrote that: "For generation is from non-existence (ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος) into being, and corruption from being back into non-existence (εἰς τὸ μὴ ὄν)."[24] Generation is the act of a new animal being derived from an existing one, or a plant deriving from an existing plant. It is new life from life. He used the phrase from non-existence in a sense of relative nonbeing, where "things" do not yet exist and there is only a formless substratum that has the potential or capacity to receive definite form. This substratum is not absolutely nothing but is not yet a thing. It is "no-thing." Thus, to say that God called to existence that which does not exist, as in Romans 4:17, actually assumes a preexisting substrate that God, by impressing form upon it, organizes into a thing that exists. Copan and Craig simply fail to note this important distinction, and thus their exegesis is critically flawed.
In their book, Copan and Craig cite a number of evangelical scholars who share their theological presuppositions and who opine that this verse refers to creation out of nothing (CON, pp. 75-78). Yet none of these authors provide any analysis or exegesis beyond asserting that the "non-existent" must mean that which does not exist in any sense. For example, Copan and Craig quote James Dunn's commentary on Romans 4:17, which reads in the relevant part: "'As creator he creates without any precondition: he makes alive where there was only death, and he calls into existence where there was nothing at all. Consequently that which has been created, made alive in this way, must be totally dependent on the creator, the life-giver, for its very existence and life'" (NMC, p. 117).[25] However, it is easy to see that the scriptural analogy of God bringing the dead to life in the same way that he creates "things which are not" does not support creatio ex nihilo. Resurrection does not presuppose that the dead do not exist in any way prior to their resurrection, nor does it presuppose that previously they did not have bodies that are reorganized through resurrection. Just as God does not create persons for the first time when he restores them to life through resurrection, so God does not create out of absolute nonbeing.
Moreover, note that Romans 4:17 doesn't expressly address whether things are created out of nothing or from some material substrate. It simply says that God "calls" things into existence that are not. Moreover, such a statement in no way entails or requires creation out of nothing implicitly. If I create a table then I create a table that did not exist before I created it, but it doesn't mean that I create it out of nothing. In this text, the word create is not even used. Rather, what God does is to "call forth" the non-existent. The verb καλέω means to call out loud to something, or to invite.[26] It presupposes something there to be called to or invited. God calls out to the non-existent by his Word, an act described by a verb used elsewhere in Paul's writings (Romans 9:11; 1 Corinthians 12:3; Galatians 5:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:24). Thus, the most natural reading of this text is that the "non-existent" or μὴ ὄντα refers to a preexisting reality that does not yet exist as God calls it to be. Such a reading has nothing to do with creation out of absolute nothing.
Notes for the above:
ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 279, translated the passage: "Even as it is written, 'I have appointed you as the father of many nations' before the God in whom he believed, the one who gives life to the dead and calls those things that are not as though they were."
[17] Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 282, emphasis in original; so also William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: Clark, 1977), 113. Further, this view is in line with a Pauline idiom_namely, verb followed by ὡς‚ plus participle (of the same verb or, in certain contexts, its antonym) to compare present reality with what is not a present reality (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:7; 5:3; 7:29, 30 [three times], 31; Colossians 2:20 [similarly, 2 Corinthians 6:9, 10]).
[19] Jonathan A. Goldstein, "The Origins of the Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo," Journal of Jewish Studies 35/2 (1984): 127.
[21] Henry Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984), 46-47. See Norman, "Ex Nihilo," 300-308.
[24] Aristotle, De Generatione Animalium B5, 741 b 22f, ed. H. J. Drossaart Lulofs (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), 74f.
[25] Quoted from James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (Dallas: Word, 1988), 237, omitting emphasis added by Copan and Craig.
Interestingly, Jeremy appealed to Job 38 to support his theology in the debate. However, Job 38 disproves his theology. How so? In Job 38:3-11, Job argues against creation ex nihilo and in favour of creation from matter--from sea and cloud. It uses the analogy of building--marking the dimensions, stretching a measuring line, setting footings, laying the cornerstones--and reveals an ambivalence toward the sea and a concern that the waters be controlled; concepts that are also found in texts from ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Creation ex materia, not ex nihilo, is taught in Job 38. (On Job 38 and the issue of whether Job pre-existed [contra Jeremy, it teaches that Job inhabited the guph, not that he did not pre-exist personally], see the discussion of the text [and others] by Kevin L. Barney, On Preexistence in the Bible).
4. Assumes Reformed
theology as being biblical (e.g., Total Depravity; this informs, among other things, his presuppositional apologetics seen throughout the debate [though he never defends his own presuppositions--merely assumes it)
See: An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology
See: An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology
Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness (this is a response to John Kauer, “Are You Considered as Good as Jesus? The Imputation Approach” in Eric Johnson and Sean McDowell, eds. Sharing the Good News with Mormons [Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House Publishers, 2018], 273-81, 339)
5. With respect to God having life "in himself" necessitating, among other things, God being outside of time in an "eternal now" and being essentially immaterial, this could cause many Christological problems for Jeremy. As LDS apologist D. Charles Pyle wrote:
5. With respect to God having life "in himself" necessitating, among other things, God being outside of time in an "eternal now" and being essentially immaterial, this could cause many Christological problems for Jeremy. As LDS apologist D. Charles Pyle wrote:
Most all Evangelicals will take issue with any sorts of ideas that Christ himself could have been begotten in the literal sense, or that he could have had some sort of beginning as an organized being. It is this aspect of Christ that we now need to discuss.
Latter-day revelation states the following about the Lord Jesus Christ and, also, the premortal existence of mankind:
And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn; and all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn. Ye were also in the beginning with the Father, . .. (D&C 91:21-23)
Evangelicals, on hearing it, will attack this scripture as invalid because of its very explicit statement that Jesus is the firstborn. They are fond of stating that Christ has been a self-existing, uncreated being from all eternity and, that he thus accordingly cannot have had a beginning as an organized intelligence. But does the Bible really teach any such thing as that? It turns out that the Bible actually does not. We find Jesus informing his disciples of the following: “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me” (John 6:57). The key phrase in this text is “and I live by the Father.” The Greek text underlying that phrase is καγω ζω δια τον πατερα. What is very significant about this phrase is its theological import. The Greek word δια is with the accusative of person and is in the accusative case. What that word in that situation indicates, in the text of the Gospel of John, is the sense of “because.” It here essentially denotes “the efficient cause” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd edition, 181b). In other words, the Father herein is stated by Jesus himself to be the efficient cause of the life of Jesus. And if Jesus had an efficient cause, he had to have had some sort of beginning as an intelligent entity. There is no other way around that, in this author’s opinion. Jesus himself taught it. A scholarly theological text avers the following about this:
Cause or Ground. The two principle non-local meanings of dia are “by means of”, “through”, (Lat. Per) and “on account of”, “because of” (Lat. ob and propter) The interrelation of these two senses is evident from the fact that dia with the acc[usative] may occasionally denote the efficient cause (e.g., Jn. 6:57a, the Father is the source of the Son’s life, as in Jn 5:26 . . .) (Colin Brown, ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 3:1183)
Do the critics even realize what this scripture means for their theologies? Essentially, scholars have admitted that the Father himself is the source or efficient cause of the life that the Son possesses! Do critics of the Church even realize the import of this admission? What it means simply is this: Jesus, in this verse of scripture, plainly states that the Father is the efficient cause, or the originating source, of the Son’s life. Thus, his life’s existence as an organized being is contingent upon the Father’s giving him life. But if Jesus really were a self-existent, non-organized (and hence non-contingent) Being, the Father could not possibly have been the efficient cause of his life, as Jesus himself said the Father is. There is only one conclusion that can be reached (if a person does not maneuver about and so attempt to explain away the plain meaning of this passage), and that is that Jesus’ very life and existence as an organized being is contingent and dependent upon the Father! Thus the Latter-day Saint view of the Son as the firstborn spirit Son of God also is quite well vindicated by this verse, and thus makes clear that his life and deity are also derived from the Father. He did not possess it of himself before the Father gave it to him . . .Revelation 3:14 [is a text that] Latter-day Saints have taken to mean that Christ was the first of the creation of God. Its important key phrase of course is: “the beginning of the creation of God.” In the Greek this is: η αρχη της κτισεως του θεου. There is some disputation as to what the true meaning of this passage is. Many scholars believe αρχη here to mean ruler, the head, or the originating cause (which also is possible and can fit the context of the passage), although terms like αρχων, κεφαλη, or αρχηγος, would seem to have been much better suited to these meanings. But in the Johannine vocabulary the word αρχη means beginning, and it is so understood in all Johannine texts in which it is used. Also, objective scholars have admitted that it is possible it infers that Christ is the first, chief, foremost, or highest of God’s creation. Walter Bauer represents that: “ . . . the meaning ‘beginning’ = first created is linguistically possible . . . (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 112a, definition 2. 3rd Edition: “linguistically probable”). Additional linguistic evidences are found at Genesis 10:10 (LXX), Job 40:19 (LXX) (and other places), which evidence lends more support to this latter view. Both these passages (as found in the Septuagint) are structured like the passage at Revelation 3:14. Both also imply the literal sense of “beginning.” It may be of interest to note that the original scribe of Codex Sinaiticus, perhaps in an effort to avoid this interpretation, wrote the text to read: και η αρχη της εκκλησιας του θεου “and the beginning of the church of God.” But if the current reading of this text indeed can be interpreted so to mean that Christ is the first of God’s creations then we also might understand that the Greek word πρωτοτοκος in Colossians 1:15 (in its most literal meaning) would lend yet additional support to this idea of Christ being the “firstborn of all creation.” It is logical to think this way.
The key phrase in Colossians 1:15 is the Greek phrase πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως, meaning firstborn of all creation. There are those who would deny the obvious implication of this verse by stating that this same word for firstborn also can be figurative in meaning or, applied to individuals who are not really firstborn in birth order. And while this is true in some cases it still does not obviate the fact it also can be intended to be literal in its meaning, or also can mean first in order. The same word in verse 18 has this latter meaning. First in order of all creation also works. From all of the above, Latter-day Saints are on far safer ground than they know. This objection of the critics, on the other hand, is of particularly weak foundation. (D. Charles Pyle, I Have Said Ye are Gods: Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament (Revised and Supplemented) [CreateSpace, 2018], 355-57, 360-61; cf. my article Is Latter-day Saint Christology “Arian”?)
Assumption of Sola Scriptura and debate challenge
During his opening statement, Jeremy merely assumed the formal doctrine of Protestantism (i.e., sola scriptura):
Listen for the starting point of our arguments: the Christian starting point, my starting point, is the Bible, the revealed word of God without which I can comprehend the world around me . . . listen for authority. (beginning at the 18:33 point)
This is simply false: the Bible does not teach its formal sufficiency nor that it is the final, ultimate authority. I have written a great deal on this, including:
Jeremy can consider this a challenge for him to debate and defend this doctrine.
Debate Thesis: Sola Scriptura, the formal doctrine of Protestantism, which teaches that the 66 books of the Protestant canon of the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith to which all other standards of faith are to be subordinated, is taught by the Bible
Opening statements: 30 mins each
Rebuttal: 15 mins each
Cross-ex: 15 mins each
Conclusion: 10 mins each
I am sure we can arrange a debate vis Zoom or some other source with a neutral (e.g., Roman Catholic) moderator.
Robert Boylan
IrishLDS87ATgmailDOTcom
09 November 2019