Evaluation of the D’Souza and Singer Debate at Biola

To the Source sponsored yet another debate between Dinesh D’Souza and a leading atheist. Dinesh has debated Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett. I believe he would debate Richard Dawkins if he could. I hope someone of more stautre would. Some have called them the “Four Horsemen of Atheism.” This time Dinesh faced Dr. Peter Singer from Princeton University. The debate was held at Biola University.

I have to admit, I was not overly impressed with Dinesh’s debating skills when he faced  Harris or Hitchens. Dennett wasn’t much of a debater either, so that exchange went to Dinesh easily. I’ve thought Dinesh was more a “social theorist” or “political commentator” than an apologist. Certainly, he isn’t a philosopher and this last debate proved that.

The format for the debate was to open with each side having a fifteen minute statement followed by a five minute rebuttal. Then a new twist in debate was added with a “cross-examination” as it was termed. Each side was to ask the other whatever he pleased. the debate concluded with questions from the audience.

Dinesh’s first mistake was to come out attacking Singer’s world, instead of showing evidence for the existence of God. Singer quickly picked up on this and began to show evidence why he believed God cannot exist. His main point was the cruelty in the world, better known as the problem of evil. Unfortunately, Dinesh didn’t know how to present the theistic presentation for this argument either. Another strike against Dinesh.

Singer appeared confident, not arrogant, which is not a good sign for your opponent. Even on a Christian campus, Singer exuded  a self-confidence that should beg you to ask some questions. In the end, Singer’s questions to Dinesh either went unanswered or t he answers were incomprehensible. A few times I found myself asking, “What is he talking about?” referring to D’Souza’s replies.

On the other hand, Singer’s answers were cogent and clear. His logic was impeccable. Make no mistake this man is brilliant and hasn’t risen to the head of his field because he’s stupid. Dinesh on the on the other hand came out “reporting” how he’d been debating “these atheists all week.” It appeared he may have been feeling his oats after one of his less taxing debates. Personally, I thought it was an arrogant statement. He may have felt he was on a Christian campus and would play to the crowd. Singer had Dinesh sized up and then began to unravel his argument.

Having studied in the world of debates and apologetics I’ve watched a couple of dozen debates. There are much better choices to debate Singer than Dinesh D’ Souza. Bill Craig comes to mind immediately. He’d give Singer much more to ponder. Dinesh wrote some good books and is known from his White House days during the Reagan administration. Christian apologist, I don’t think so. His fumbling through questions and ill-advised attacks on Singer do not win anyone, even the listeners. Personally, I think this does more harm than good for the cause of Christ.

Singer’s last comments we that he felt this kind of debate is what is supposed to happen on university campuses - that is the exchange of ideas. This is true. We would all benefit from the kind of debates that explained views and helped us understand our opponents position.

If you wish to watch the debate you can see them here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Phgb67NAaHA

Digg It!

no comments yet.

Mitt Romney’s Speech & Mormonism

The confusion of our faith and politics affords us continuous errors. After listening to Mitt Romney’s speech, some people are impressed. He compared himself with JFK and his speech when he ran for president. JFK made the point that he was not a “Catholic running for president. He was an American running for president who happened to be a Catholic. Romney followed suit. He claimed he is not a Mormon running for president, but an American who happened to be a Mormon. His major appeal was to the Christian right. Although Romney didn’t say anything controversial, he did obscure some very important facts about his Mormon beliefs. I don’t believe he was trying to be deceptive, but he used terms that would “acceptable” to Christian listeners. He referred to the “founding fathers” which is an acceptable buzz word for Christians. He definitely got in line with the Christina arguments for a moral society. But, there were some tricky points in his speech which may go unobserved or uninterpreted.

First, let’s lay things out in a more apparent way. Mormonism began as a cult and has grown into a “folk-religion.” It may well be that Mormonism is America’s folk-religion. When Joseph Smith received his “revelation” it was to announce that the church had altered the Scriptures, had left the religion of the apostles and prophets and that he was chosen to restore it. He was the undisputed leader of the new cult that broke away from traditional Christianity. Smith was an authoritarian leader that banded together his followers who sought a place to carry out their new revelation. Mormonism refined its beliefs through the years, at least the ones that were clearly offensive, like bigamy.

Some Christians were impressed that Romney declared that he believed Jesus to be the Son of God and the savior of mankind. This is very Christian-like. However, Mormons have said that for a while. Jehovah witnesses will say similar statements. What Mormons will not say is that Jesus Christ is God’s unique Son. Nor will they say He is God, the Son. Mormons have always asserted that Jesus is the Savior of Mankind, but they do not believe that he died for you personally. His redemption is kind of a corporate redemption that is only available to those who walk the Mormon path. They also believe that Jesus was pre-existent as a “spirit baby” and the brother of Lucifer. We don’t have space to go into the “special under garments” nor the need to get married in the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City. Mormons do have some different beliefs than orthodox Christians.

It’s amazing what some Christians will accept. To many the statements Romney made sounded authentic. But, this is where the confusion lay. Because someone is a Mormon doesn’t make him a bad candidate for president. Nor, should it be the test whether he will be a good president. Mormons are moral, for the most part. However, I can’t categorically say that any Christian candidate will be moral either. If morality is the issue, we ought to make that the issue. There was a muddying of the waters in Romney’s speech that may pave the way for him to become the Republican candidate. The problem will be if he’s accepted because of his allusion to Christian beliefs.

Romney’s hurdle is to garner support from the Christian voters – he’s looking for the conservative right’s Christian voting block. Pundits like Pat Buchanan have given Romney’s speech high marks. But Pat Buchanan is the poster child for Libertarian Christianity, not exactly the center of the stream. Buchanan aside, the other apologists have not have not sounded off. They’ll be others who criticize what he said, more than I have.

Here’s what Romney did in his speech. He alluded to a pseudo-Christian faith in his statements about Jesus. He then picked up the argument of fighting the secular left. This was a smart move, very smart. The knee-jerk Christians, whose faith has been politicized, will rally right behind him. Not a bad political move, not at all.

Here’s the downside of it for Christianity: Romney becomes president and people look at Mormonism in a new light. Mormons can’t be that bad, look at Mitt. Romney will secure Mormonism as America’s folk-religion. Mormonism is spiritual enough to satisfy many.

I know people will misunderstand my next statement. However, I’ll try to make this as clear as I can. I don’t have a problem with Romney running for president. Nor do I have a problem with him becoming president. But please, leave my Christianity alone. It’s muddy enough with all the press it gets. It’s muddy enough with the politicized mumbo jumbo of pundits who don’t understand the Scripture and use it for their own political prowess.

Aside from my own consternation about my faith, this ought to be interesting to watch as it plays out. Romney’s ploy to talk about his faith will prompt a response from Mike Huckabee.  This ought to make things interesting, really interesting in the coming months.

Digg It!

1 comment.

NO PAT ANSWERS:MOVING TOWARD A MORE ENGAGING EVANGELISM|By Ray Ciervo

A young man recently wrote to Billy Graham, who authors a column in the Charlotte Observer here in North Carolina. The young man was questioning a friend’s faith: “Every time I ask her why she believes what she does, her reply is, ‘Because it’s in the Bible.’” The young man acknowledged his skepticism concerning the Bible’s authority and in frustration asked Graham why he should believe. What his friend was doing was serving up a “pat” answer.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition, defines a “pat answer” as one that is trite or glib, superficially complete or satisfactory. “Pat answers” assume everyone understands what the underlying meaning really is. The problem is that the real meaning goes unobserved behind what is actually said.

Pat answers have had a very serious effect on Christianity. When Christianity was the dominant religion in America and when it had some influence in society and culture, it presumed everyone knew what it was all about. From a position of authority it responded with pat answers. Christians presumed everyone else knew the substance. Unfortunately, this has served to help undermine that position of authority and influence.

As we know today, Christianity is marginalized in American culture. It does not seem to have much authority and is looked upon critically as having no significant importance. What has happened?

Part of what has happened is that the Church has been asleep at the wheel. There were some who were warning of the impending storm, but most of the Church stayed asleep. We are kind of like the frog in the kettle. The illustration tells us that if you try to put a frog in boiling water he will jump out. However if you put him in cold water and slowly heat up the kettle, then you can boil him.

The world has changed on us much the same way. The changes have been slow over a long time. Few people realize how long ago it began….

The young man was questioning a friend’s faith: “Every time I ask her why she believes what she does, her reply is, ‘Because it’s in the Bible.’”

A QUICK HISTORY
The Mayflower Compact declared that the first Pilgrims intended to share their Christian faith as they settled in their new land. The founding fathers depended on God to guide them through the process of independence and the establishment of this nation. The government even sponsored evangelism among Native Americans.

It appeared this would be a nation which would have its roots in God’s Word and depend on His guidance. The influence of the first and second “great awakenings” had significant impact on the young nation. It appeared this would be a nation which would have its roots in God’s Word and depend on His guidance. Granted, some of the founding fathers were not perfect, but in most cases, they were God-fearing men. However, this was short lived.

In 1859, Charles Darwin introduced his Origin of the Species. This book had a profound affect on the scientific and religious community. Yet, that book did not discard religion or God as Creator of man. It wasn’t until 1871 that his Descent of Man, proclaimed that man evolved from apes. In 1925, the Scopes Trail, totally misrepresented by the play and movie, Inherit the Wind, made headlines over whether it was unlawful to teach evolution in public schools. The Christians won the case, though you would never know it. In 1933, the Humanist Manifesto was written declaring, “We need no God and no savior. We can save ourselves.” One of the signers of the manifesto was John Dewey.

John Dewey had a strategy to rid the public school system of anything that related to God and religion. His strategy called for training a generation of humanists who would teach American children. In the early sixties, school prayer and Bible studies were banned from public schools. It took Dewey’s strategy only 30 years to succeed.

THE NEW DOGMA
Today, few people realize what is being taught in schools and what will soon become common fare. Take for example just one professor who has had a devastating effect on education: Peter Singer. Professor Singer, chairperson for the Center of Human Values at Princeton University is an avowed secular humanist who teaches ethics at the university to future world leaders. However, his “ethics” consist of the ends justifying the means; he is a consequentialist, a utilitarian. Singer seemingly believes and teaches that abortion on demand should be commonplace. He also seeks to promote physician assisted suicide, and euthanasia. Some consider Singer a monster. To his credit, he has assisted famine victims and helped alleviate poverty in some instances. However, he is an atheist who holds to an evolutionary world view.

Educators of Singer’s ilk believe that in some cases, paraplegics, quadriplegics, the blind, and others who suffer and have no hope of a cure should be terminated. Babies born with deformities should be terminated under this chilling worldview. Ironically, Peter Singer is considered one of the brightest minds in academia today.

What is taught at the university level will soon become what is taught at the lower levels. It will filter down through the system until it becomes law. The effects of other legal decisions and advances of atheism have reached all of us today. As Christians, we have lost significant ground in every quarter.

THAT WON’T CUT IT
When we try to use pat answers today we realize they fall on deaf ears, even perplexed minds. “How could you believe something like that?” comes the reply. Pat answers don’t cut it anymore. In one sense, they never did.

But here is some good news…we live in a day of great opportunities for evangelism. You see, Christians are not the only ones guilty of giving pat answers…this is now the world’s mode of operation and communication. Advertising agencies, businesses, governments, and even educators are spouting trite, glib responses to the questions or circumstances surrounding all of us. “Just do it” and “No boundaries” are some of the cliches the Madison Avenue crew has picked up on. “Whatever” is the consummate pat answer today. It is the glib, trite expression that says, “Who cares?”

Here are some others: “That may be true for you,” “You can’t legislate morality,” and “All religions lead to God.” These are all trite, glib, self-refuting, pat answers. We must recognize the nature of the statements and bring them into the light of analysis. Each of these statements contain fallacies which betray the person who uses them.

Today, you have an opportunity to share your beliefs and ask probing questions of others. Of course, you must first understand what it is that you believe. Could you, for example, explain or even state your church’s statement of faith? Do you know what the essentials of evangelical Christianity are? Could you give a somewhat clear description of the Trinity, in terms that would not freak out the average listener?

When you talk about Jesus, to which “Jesus” do you refer? The Mormons have a Jesus. The Jehovah Witnesses have a Jesus. B’hai, New Age, and even the Hindus believe in a Jesus. Just which Jesus are we speaking about?

You cannot give pat answers and should learn how to recognize when someone else is trying to “put one across” on you. This is not a time for Christians to abandon sound doctrine and embrace a lightweight Christianity. This is the time for in-depth understanding of the basics of the faith and a time to engage people in Gospel conversation. This is time for the Church to rise up and meet the challenges it faces.

Digg It!

1 comment.

The Truth of the Matter

WHAT IS TRUTH?

By Ray Ciervo
The truth of the matter is that truth matters. Forgive me for this “play on words,” but I find that too many Christians are way too cavalier with their view of truth. I hear all kinds of definitions of truth like, “truth is kaleidoscopic” and “we each have a piece of the truth.” Worse, I hear things like “No one can know the truth.” My response to all that is to ask, “Is that true?”
 
Allow me to plant my flag on this hill: I believe truth is absolute, objective and knowable. There, I’ve said it. Now that the assertion is made, let me demonstrate the evidence.
 
In John 18:37 we read,
 
Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” (My emphasis)
Jesus asserts his purpose was to testify to the truth. Then he went on to say that everyone who is of the truth hears his voice. Certainly, John’s Gospel has more references to the concept of truth than the other gospels. I believe the time of John’s writing warranted his emphasis on the truth.
 
Christianity had traversed its regulated boundaries of Judaism and had begun to make an impact on the Roman world. Where it had once been considered a cult of Judaism, it was now contending with the Pagan religions of the Empire. The Roman world was relativistic and therefore pluralistic. Rome acquired many ‘gods’ as they absorbed cities and societies into its empire. All the gods of these societies were welcomed as long as they lined up with emperor worship. As the conqueror, Rome could easily take this place. However, Christianity came singing a different song, proclaiming the one true God, a different Lord than Caesar, and a Savior.
 
We immediately learn two things from these verses. Jesus’ discloses his purpose for being born was to testify to the truth and that there are sides. That is, there are some who are not “of the truth” and do not hear his voice.
 
John’s Gospel has many other references to truth. Jesus told his disciples that after he is gone he would send the comforter who is the “Spirit of truth” (John 14:16,17) and he, the Spirit of truth, would guide the disciples into all truth. (John 16:13) For John to write these things repeatedly is to make the point . . . truth is important. In reality, that is an understatement; truth is essential. He also makes the point that truth is knowable. This is also emphasized in the verse, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32) Of course, the condition of this assertion is to make your home in God’s word.
 
Certainly, no one knows the truth as God does. His knowledge is infinite. However, Jesus asserts that if we abide in his word, we shall know the truth. There doesn’t seem like there’s any uncertainty here. Why Christians would accommodate a postmodern position on truth knowing what Jesus has said is troubling. Do they question what Jesus said? Do they question what he meant?
 
Another comment I hear regularly is that “truth is a person.” The reference here is to the claims of Jesus being “the way, the truth and the life.” Think for a moment. What did Jesus mean when he said, “I am the way?” The way to what? From the context we can ascertain he meant that he’s the way to the Father. Is he the way everywhere? No, he was claiming that he is the way to the Father, or the way to eternal life.
 
When he stated, “I am the life,” what was he claiming? Was he saying, I am all of life? He was claiming that he is the only life worth having as far as eternity is concerned and that eternal life is in him. In context when Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” he was not using that in an absolute fashion.
 
Why then would we consider he is “all of truth?” He is not the answer to every mathematical problem. Nor is he the definition of every word in every language. However, he is the truth concerning the promise of the Father, the seed of Abraham, and the fulfillment of every prophecy concerning the Messiah. Also, we can consider that Jesus is the bearer of the truth about salvation. The law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. This is not to trivialize the Lord’s personhood or the substance of his being. He is the source of all truth. Only truth proceeds from his mouth. In him there is no darkness, no lies, and death cannot be found in him. He is light, truth, and life. That is the context of Jesus asserting, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”
 
Yes, when we embrace Jesus we embrace the truth. Yet, truth is found in doctrine and certainly in God’s word. “Your Word is Truth” exclaims the psalmist. (Psalm 119:160; cf. John 17:17) We are saved by obedience to the truth, (1 Peter 1:22). Some oppose the truth, (1 Tim 3:8); some turn away their ears from the truth and turn aside to myths, (1 Tim 4:4; Titus 1:14) some stray from the truth, (James 5:19).
 
So we come to ask, “What is truth?” Although there are several theories of truth, the classical definition of truth that comes down to us through the ages is, truth is that which corresponds to reality. Truth claims assert what is real, not imagined. That which is truth exists whether we know it or not, whether we believe it or not. Truth exists without us and in spite of our attempts to redefine it. This is the “concept” of truth. This is what Jesus is not. He is the “content” of truth.
 
The simple question is, does the Scripture comply with this? Some might ask, does this comply with Scripture. Either way the answer is a resounding YES! Thy word corresponds to that which is real, that which is. Jesus Christ is the truth about salvation.
 
Does Jesus Christ correspond to reality? Absolutely! And he came to testify to the truth and gave us the Spirit of truth to guide us into all truth. In Jesus’ day it was common to begin a discourse by saying, “Verily, verily.” Translation? Truly, truly. “What I am about to say corresponds to what is real.”
 
Truth is essential for our faith because we do not have faith in faith, but faith in what is true. Essentials are those things that are non-negotiable. So it is with truth. Learn to value it, embrace it, and love it. Truth is knowable through our minds and hearts. We are to confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in our hearts that God raised him from the dead. This is the way to salvation.
 
Seekers of truth find Jesus, if in fact this is what they desire. If all we’re attempting to do is justify our lifestyle, our political position, or our religion, we won’t find him. Truth is a master and we must let it master us. The truth sets us free when we abide in his word and come to know it.
 
The Spirit of truth guides us into truth. When we are “of the truth” we hear his voice because he only speaks the truth. God is the source of all truth and Jesus bears that truth to us today.
 
WHAT IS TRUTH?

Digg It!

no comments yet.

Wake Up!

WAKE UP WAKE UP! is a weekend conference for the church to wake up to the culture war it is involved in. Adam Barr of Borderlands Ministries and I have teamed up to put this weekend teaching together. Please contact me via “The Crew” page.

Digg It!

no comments yet.

Theology Gets a Bad Rap

Theology has a bad reputation. Somehow people tend to think of theology as some cerebral subject reserved for ivory tower professors. I don’t agree. Every church serious about its mission has a statement of faith which is a theological statement. Claiming yourself to be an evangelical or a charismatic is a statement about theology. Some try to say they’re followers of Jesus - this, too, is a theological statement.

Theologians may be concerned about the finer points of theology. Some may even wrangle over concepts. In a positive sense, this keeps theologians sharp. Fortunately, not everyone is called to be a theologian. However, that is not to say that not everyone ought to know theology.

Theology is simply words about God. That’s the literal interpretation. However, theology is the study of God’s person and His works. Understanding that the universe is a work of God is saying something about God. The universe’s immensity tells us something about God’s infiniteness - not that the universe is infinite, but to us mortals, it appears that way. One has to wonder, “What kind of being could make this?” It doesn’t take special revelation to understand the exactness of God’s created order. In fact, theologians call this “general revelation.” Even a pagan can know this:

because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:19,20)

These verses tell us that man is responsible for the knowledge God has revealed to him through creation. It’s plain that there is a lot to know about God through what He’s made. This is sound theology. Knowing God is always practical. Knowing about God is always practical also. Theology, therefore, is practical.

When I see something about God, His eternal power and divine nature, it causes me to worship - when I realize God has spoken to me, not in cryptic signs, esoteric or hidden meanings, but in plain language. The heavens declare the glory of God. The more I learn about intelligent design, irreducible complexity, and specificity, the more clearly I see the face of God, or at least His mind.
God is still making foolish those who claim to be wise. His construction and functional design of a simple cell is more complex than the most complex invention of man. DNA reveals a complex mind with infinite powers of creation. This is theology. Some refer to it as natural theology. Regardless of what we call it, it is valid.

Theology proper is concerned with the study of the attributes of God as revealed in Scripture. This requires special revelation. What follows here is one of my favorite quotes from Thomas Aquinas

[I]t was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man’s whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 1

Anyone who thinks Thomas is guilty of placing too much emphasis on reason ought to be persuaded differently. He places the emphasis here on revelation through the Scripture in order to know the salvation from God. Creation can reveal God’s attributes, but Scripture reveals His redemption. Through creation and the Scripture we could all come to know this awesome being we call God.

Theology is practical in that knowing God and knowing about God teaches me how to relate to Him. It might make me reflect on His covenantal determination to show His wondrous love to everyone. It might also move me to touch someone with His love. I know God’s love personally, but also as it is revealed in Scripture. In fact, Scripture defines how God loves us and why He does.
We know God through experience also but not only through experience. And experience ought not to be the judge of our knowledge. Experience can testify to our knowledge but cannot judge its validity. Anyone who says “Experience is the best teacher” doesn’t know the rest of that statement. The whole statement is “Experience is the best teacher in the school of fools.” Experience is an ancillary teacher, a handmaiden.

Studying theology, learning about God is important. It’s hard work, but not impossible. There have been countless men whose knowledge about God has been recorded to help us know Him. They allow us to stand on their shoulders and get a better glimpse of the one who is unseen.

Learning about God through creation and through Scripture is like having both oars in the water. Using only one oar will get you going in circles. Pulling both evenly gets us going straight. There are times when one “oar” might need to be emphasized. For me, it was learning natural theology. I’d been a student of theology proper and understood what I could of special revelation, God’s grace and mercy. His redemptive acts in Jesus allow us to see His covenantal nature. But zeroing in on wondrous works of creation and the natural law written on our hearts has evened out my view of God. And, ironically, one has strengthened the other.
Theology has had a bad rap. Knowing God and knowing about God gives us a balanced view. It also gives us a more accurate view of God. In a day of pluralistic theologies and relativism, this strengthens our witness.

In closing, let me suggest some roads to learning theology. It may help to know there are several ways to approach theology. Biblical theology concerns the revelation of God through Scripture as He reveals himself through covenant. Historical theology is the study of the church’s documentation of doctrines through the ages. Practical theology is concerned with direct application. Systematic theology or theology proper is the analysis of God’s attributes. These would be concerned with special revelation.
Natural theology is nearly ignored today. However, the intelligent design movement may urge us to reconsider. You have to go back several centuries to find this classical view of God. The teachers of the scholastic period were experts in natural theology. This is probably why the reformers rejected it. It was all too catholic.

Whichever course you pursue remember that everyone does theology and it is recommended that what you do ought to be sound.

Digg It!

1 comment.

Some thoughts on Ames, Shank & Predestination

Predestination has been debated literally for centuries. The difficulties surrounding the topic has occupied the time of Biblical scholars considerably. The immediate problem of predestination can be stated as this: How do we reconcile the sovereignty of God to save and the free will of man? What is questionable when predestination is discussed is whether God is sovereign or whether man is a free agent. Can the two coexist? Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange stated it this way: “How can predestination, which is infallible in its effect, be reconciled with the will to save all mankind, since the salvation of many will not be realized?”[1]

Those of the reformed tradition claim there is not a problem with predestination. God is simply sovereign and man is not free as a sinner. Salvation is of the Lord; man takes no part in it. On the opposite side of the spectrum is the Arminian view which says man is a free agent and chooses salvation for himself. These two extremes are stated simply here and will be looked at with greater detail and scrutiny. An examination of Scriptures and relevant authors reveal why the tension exists and why the arguments have prevailed for as long as they have. Perhaps the last question to ask is whether there is danger in holding with of these views?

Election and Predestination

In order to look at the Reformed view of predestination, the one of the followers of John Calvin must be perused. William Ames (1576-1655) is one of the foremost of Reformed thinkers and sets out the doctrine of predestination in a straightforward way. Without hesitating Ames states there are two kinds of predestination, election and rejection or reprobation.[2]  “Election is the predestination of certain men so that the glorious grace of God may be shown in them.”[3] For Ames, election is one simple act of the will of God but for our understanding it breaks up into many acts.Ames sites that predestination has existed from eternity.[4] The application of redemption to some men and not to all, existed in God before the creation of the world.[5] He goes on to state that predestination is a decree from God concerning the eternal condition of men which show his special glory.[6] “It is called destination because there is a sure determination of the order of means for the end. Because God determined this order by himself before any actual existence of things, it is called not simply destination but predestination.”[7]

It is called a decree because, according to Ames, it contains a definite sentence to be executed under firm counsel. In the same way it is called a purpose and a counsel, because it sets forth an end to be reached as a result of deliberation. Predestination is according to God’s “greatest wisdom, freedom, firmness, and immutability.”[8] 2 Timothy 2:19 confirms this: “Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, ‘The Lord knows those who are His,. . .’” Ames goes on to say that this verse also means that God not only knows the number of those who will be saved but the names of each of them.

Predestination does not depend on the means or the end. In fact, Ames states that predestination is the cause for the objects of predestination to exist. “Hence it depends on no cause, reason or outward condition, but proceeds purely from the will of him who predestines."[9] Ames goes on to say that there is no previous quality in man which might be considered the formal object in man. Neither is there a condition in any man which determines that another man should be excluded. Man are equal among themselves and simply the object of the decree. Ames clearly says that the condition of predestination does not depend upon man whatsoever, but the differences found in man are the result of the decree.
Because predestination proceeds purely from the from the will of him who predestines there is no prerequisite foreknowledge or presupposed foreknowledge other than the simple intelligence which relates to all things. “He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,”[10] and “He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him,”[11] are used to support this claim. Simply, predestination is an act of God’s will towards a certain object which determines to bring a specific end by a specific means.

Ames believes in God’s simplicity; He is simply one. Simplicity is the opposite of composed. God is not composed of parts so Ames says,

There is properly only one act of the will in God because in Him all things are simultaneous and there is nothing before or after. So there is only decree about the end and means, but for the manner of understanding we say that, so far as intention is concerned, God will the end before the means.[12]

It is here that Ames spells out election of certain people. Although he states all things are simultaneous in God and that God does not think discursively, there are several “acts” in predestination. The first act is to will the glory of his grace in salvation in some men. The second acts is to designate which  men will partake of this salvation. The true meaning of the second act is the “love” expressed to these certain men.[13] This love is specified in selecting some and rejecting or “setting apart” others. The third act of election is the purpose or intention of preparing and direct means by which these certain individuals will be led to salvation.

All the effects of election follow Jesus Christ being sent. He is the means given for the salvation of man. In the third act of election Christ is certainly the cause.

(more…)

Digg It!

no comments yet.