View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Liberty University Digital Commons LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY A NON-VOLUNTARIST THEORY: AN ALTERNATE EVANGELICAL APOLOGETIC FOR DEALING WITH THE EUTHYPHRO DILEMMA A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY EVAN TAYLOR POSEY LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA OCTOBER 2016 APPROVAL SHEET A NON-VOLUNTARIST THEORY: AN ALTERNATE EVANGELICAL APOLOGETIC FOR DEALING WITH THE EUTHYPHRO DILEMMA Evan Taylor Posey Read and approved by: Chair Person: Richard A. Holland Reader: Edward N. Martin Reader: Anthony C. Thornhill Date: 10/9/2016 ii To my wife, Leslie-Ann, my children, and my family: There are no words that can adequately express my gratitude for your love, encouragement, and patience. iii CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................ vi ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 Statement of Purpose and Thesis ...................................................................................... 10 Definitions ........................................................................................................................ 15 Summary and Content Outline of the Dissertation ........................................................... 21 CHAPTER 2: THE EUTHYPHRO DILEMMA AND MORAL PHILOSOPHY ................. 26 The Euthyphro Dilemma................................................................................................... 26 Standard Divine Command Theory and Moral Philosophy .............................................. 42 Guided Will Theory and Moral Philosophy ...................................................................... 54 CHAPTER 3: THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARD DIVINE COMMAND THEORY ....................................................................... 63 Proponents of Standard Divine Command Theory ........................................................... 63 Opponents of Standard Divine Command Theory ............................................................ 79 The Contemporary Debate ................................................................................................ 97 CHAPTER 4: AN ANALYSIS OF CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL REFORMULATIONS OF MODIFIED DIVINE COMMAND THEORY ... 109 William Lane Craig’s Non-Voluntarist Divine Command Theory ................................. 111 David Baggett and Jerry L. Walls’ More Defensible Divine Command Theory ............ 129 Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan’s Divine Command Theory of Obligation .......... 143 CHAPTER 5: A NON-VOLUNTARIST THEORY OF MORAL VALUES OBLIGATIONS, AND DUTIES ........................................................................ 160 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 160 A Non-Voluntarist Theory of Moral Values, Obligations, and Duties ........................... 162 Apologetic Effectiveness ................................................................................................ 177 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 198 iv BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................... 202 v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank all of the faculty and staff at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary for their service for the kingdom, and their tireless investment. I would like to thank Dr. Leo Percer and Dr. John Morrison in particular for taking the time to pray with me and for me throughout the program. I would also like to thank all of the faculty and staff at Luther Rice College and Seminary. I consider them family and some of my most ardent cheerleaders. Dr. Rich Holland has been a patient mentor and invaluable resource throughout this process. He provided guidance, clear thinking, and a renewed sensitivity to careful thought regarding the goodness of God and his expectations of his creation. It was Dr. Holland that encouraged me to examine the issue of divine command theory, for that I am grateful. I am a more winsome ambassador for Christ because of his commitment to excellence. Dr. James Flanagan was as much of a mentor as any in completing this project. I would like to thank him for the extraordinary investment that he has made in me and this process. He hired me as a young twenty-five-year-old father of one. Ten years and six children later, I hope this project makes him proud. I would like to thank my parents, who have provided spiritual, emotional, and financial support throughout this process. I have had the unique privilege of walking this journey with my father, which has been a great blessing that few can claim to have experienced. It has been said that behind every great man there is a better woman. This is certainly true of my mother. Her love and patience have provided the encouragement to keep moving forward. There is no one more deserving of laud than my wife, Leslie-Ann Posey. She is my best friend, loving wife, and unbelievable mother. She was the first to encourage me to pursue apologetics, and she has continued to affirm God’s call throughout my education. Without her, vi this project would not exist. Many women have done excellently, but you surpass them all (Proverbs 31:29). Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank my sovereign Lord. Thank you for calling me, giving me a new heart, and setting my life on a new trajectory. I pray that this apologetic effort will assist your kingdom in advancing your cause of calling the lost to yourself. vii ABSTRACT This dissertation presents an alternative response to the Euthyphro dilemma that will be referred to as the Non-Voluntarist Theory. It offers a critical evaluation of contemporary evangelical divine command theories to demonstrate the inherent ambiguity as they relate to Divine Command Theory, and their lack of apologetic force for answering the Euthyphro dilemma. To accomplish this task, it is important to understand how the Euthyphro Dilemma relates to theology and apologetics in general, and the contemporary attempts to ground objective moral values and duties in particular. The topic relates to theology, since one’s response to the Euthyphro Dilemma can implicitly or explicitly speak to God’s moral sovereignty. The topic relates to apologetics in two primary ways. First, the Euthyphro Dilemma is still offered by contemporary non-theists as a critique of the Christian faith. Therefore, the response one gives, and the method used, is vital to the apologetic enterprise. Second, the Euthyphro Dilemma is meant to challenge the belief that God is the explanatory ultimate for objective moral values and duties. In addition, an examination of the philosophical landscape that surrounds the relationship between the Euthyphro Dilemma and Divine Command Theory is needed. Contemporary formulations of divine command theories of ethics make a distinction between moral values and moral obligations and duties. While this is not an illicit distinction, it is a distinction that weakens the apologetic force of the argument. Therefore, it is imperative that a proposed solution to the Euthyphro Dilemma is able to explain sufficiently moral ontology, moral epistemology, and moral obligation. Contemporary evangelical formulations of Divine Command Theory are not evangelical, per se. Rather, these formulations are moral theories that happen to be ones that evangelicals viii tend to support. In order to critically evaluate contemporary evangelical divine command theories, one should be aware of the historical development of the Standard Divine Command Theory. In the field of research, special attention is given to one of the most notable representatives of the Standard Divine Command Theory, William of Ockham. Thus, one must be familiar with Ockham’s work. Also, one must be aware of the modifications that have been made to Divine Command Theory that depart from the Ockhamist version and frame the modern perspective. Non-theists tend to understand the Divine Command Theory in Ockhamist terms. Consequently, attempts by contemporary evangelical modified divine command theorists use divine command terminology in a non-standard way, which creates a more cumbersome apologetic. This dissertation will advance a position that moves towards the first horn, or non- voluntarist horn, of the Euthyphro Dilemma. It is thought that those who embrace this horn commit to the existence of a moral standard “outside, or distinct, from God” that guides the divine will. For example, William Lane Craig argues that to embrace the non-voluntarist horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma is to embrace atheistic moral Platonism.1 Traditionally, those who affirm this horn argue for the existence of objective moral values and duties that exist independent of God’s existence and are accessible independent of divine revelation or command. This position at times has been referred to as the Guided Will Theory, since God would be guided by these independent moral values and duties. This dissertation advances a Non- Voluntarist