What is Eternity? | Excerpt from Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s Providence

Providence by
Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.

The primary object of contemplation is, in fact, God Himself and His infinite perfections, especially
His goodness, His wisdom, and His providence.

What is eternity?

10. The Eternity Of God
Having discussed the divine immensity in its relation to space, we must now consider God’s eternity in relation to time. Without it we can have no conception of Providence, whose decrees are eternal.

Let us examine the wrong notion people sometimes have of this divine eternity, and then we shall better understand the true definition of it, which is likewise a very beautiful.

What is eternity?

There is a partially erroneous conception of the divine eternity current among those who are content to define it as a duration without beginning and without end, thinking of it vaguely as time without limit either in the past or in the future.

Such a notion of eternity is inadequate: because a time that had no beginning, no first day, would always be, nevertheless, a succession of days and years and centuries, a succession embracing a past, a present, and a future. That is not eternity at all. We might go back in the past and number the centuries without ever coming to an end, just as in thinking of the time to come we picture to
ourselves the future acts of immortal souls as an endless series. Even if time had no beginning, there would still have been a succession of varying moments.

The present instant, which constitutes the reality of time, is an instant fleeting between the past and the future ("nunc fluens, " says St. Thomas), an instant fleeting like the waters of a river, or like the apparent movement of the sun by which we count the days and the hours. What, then, is time? As Aristotle says, it is the measure of motion, more especially of the sun’s motion, or rather that of
the earth around the sun, the rotation of the earth on its axis constituting one day as its revolution around the sun constitutes one year. If the earth and the sun had been created by God from all eternity and the regular motion of the earth around the sun had been without beginning, there would not have been a first day or a first year, but there would always have been a succession of years and centuries. Such a succession would then have been a duration without either beginning or end, but a duration, nevertheless, infinitely inferior to eternity; for there would always have been the distinction between past, present, and future. In other words, multiply the centuries by thousands and thousands, and it will always be time; however long drawn out, it will never be eternity.

If, then, to define the divine eternity as a duration without either beginning or end is inadequate, what is it? The answer of theology is that it is a duration without either beginning or end, but with this very distinctive characteristic, that in it there is no succession either past or future, but an everlasting present. It is not a fleeting instant, like the passing of time, but an immobile instant which never
passes, an unchanging instant. It is "the now that stands, not that flows away, " 67 says St. Thomas (Ia, q. 10, a. 2, obj. Ia), like a perpetual morning that had no dawn and will know no evening.

How are we to conceive this unique instant of an unchanging eternity? Whereas time, this succession of days and years, is the measure of the apparent motion of the sun or the real motion of the earth, eternity is the measure or duration of the being, thought, and love of God. Now these are absolutely immutable, without either change or variation or vicissitude. Since God is of necessity the infinite
fullness of being, there is nothing for Him to gain or to lose. God can never increase or diminish in perfection; He is perfection itself unchangeable.

This absolute fixity of the divine being necessarily extends to His wisdom and His will; any change or progress in the divine knowledge and love would argue imperfection.

The unchangeableness, however, is not the unchangeableness of inertia or death; it is that of supreme life, possessing once and for all everything it is possible and right that it should possess, neither having to acquire it nor being able to lose it.

Thus we come to the true definition of eternity: an exceedingly profound and beautiful definition, one full of spiritual instruction for us.

Digg It!

no comments yet.

Thomist Spotlight | Domingo Bañez (1528-1604)

Bañez, Domingo

(Originally and more properly VANEZ and sometimes, but erroneously, IBAÑEZ), DOMINGO, a Spanish Dominican theologian, b. 29 February, 1528, at Medina del Campo, Old Castile; d. there 22 October, 1604. The qualifying Mondragonensis, attached to his name, seems to be a patronymic after his father John Bañez of Mondragon, Guipuscoa. At fifteen he began to study philosophy at the University of Salamanca. Three years later he took the Dominican habit at St. Stephen's Convent, and made his profession 3 May, 1547. During a year's review of the liberal arts and later, he had th afterwards distinguished Bartolomé Medina as a fellow student. Under such professors as Melchior Cano (1548-51), Diego de Chaves (1551), and Pedro Sotomayor (1550-51) he studied theology, laying the foundations of the erudition and acquiring the acumen which later made him eminent as a theologian and an exponent and defender of Thomistic doctrine. He next began teaching, and under Domingo Soto, as prior and regent, he field various professorships for ten years. He was made master of students, explaining the "Summa" to the younger brethren for five years, and incidentally taking the place, with marked success, of professors who were sick, or who for other reasons were absent from their chairs at the university. In the customary, sometimes competitive, examinations before advancement he is said easily to have carried off all honours. He taught at the Dominican University of Avila from 1561 to 1566. About 1567 he was assigned to a chair of theology at Alcalá, the ancient Complutum. It appears that he was at Salamanca again in 1572 and 1573, but during the four scholastic years 1573-71 he was regent of St. Gregory's Dominican College al Valladolid, a house of higher studies where the best students of the Castilian province were prepared for a scholastic career. Elected Prior of Toro, he went instead to Salamanca to compete for the chair of Durandus, left vacant by Medina's promotion to the chief professorship. He occupied this position from 1577 to 1580. After Medina's death (30 December 1580) he appeared again as competitor for the first chair of the university. The outcome was an academic triumph for Bañez and he was duly installed in his new position amid the acclamations of professors and students. There he laboured for nearly twenty years. His name acquired extraordinary authority, and the leading schools of orthodox Spain referred to him as the prclarissimum jubar — "the brightest light" — of their country.

(more…)

Digg It!

no comments yet.

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.

What Is Mark Driscoll’s View of Atonement?

Roger Overton at the A-Team blog has an interesting post on Mark Driscoll's Unlimited/Limited view of the atonement (whatever that means). While I haven't heard all of Driscoll's material on the subject matter it reminded me of a similar approach taken by Eric Svendsen who is the Founder and Director of New Testament Research Ministries and a Tutor in New Testament at Greenwich School of Theology, U.K. He has some great posts in studies on the New Testament but when it comes to the T.U.L.I.P he differs with the Reformed view by saying:

In the Calvinistic acronym T.U.L.I.P. (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints), I fully affirm T.U.I.P., reject the L., and replace it with . . . well, to be honest, I haven’t yet found a good letter that would tie the acronym together. But the long and short of it is, I believe Limited atonement is widely held by Calvinists because it is perceived to be the natural theological outworking of the other four points, not because there is some explicit teaching about it in Scripture. In other words, unlike all the other points of Calvinism, I don’t think Limited atonement can be supported exegetically. In fact, I think it contradicts the exegesis of those texts that actually do speak to the matter of the extent of the atonement.

So how do I arrive at 4.5 Calvinism?

With that said, in evaluating Driscoll's similar stance on Limited Atonement, one thing that aroused my curiosity was Roger's assessment that:

Driscoll goes further: “Therefore, Modified Calvinists like the Mars Hill elders do not believe anything different than Arminians; we simply believe what they believe and more.” In other words, he believes Christ atonement for all and particularly for the elect. Such a view, apart from not making any sense, is not the Reformed view. Unlimited Limited and Limited Atonement, contra Driscoll, are diametrically opposed when properly understood. His position may be equally, or perhaps better, identified as Modified Arminianism.

My question to him was the following:

Could it be said that just because the L in the reformed version of T.U.L.I.P is modified it doesn't have to mean that it is de facto a modified Arminianism but maybe a modified Calvinism. This could attributed to an accidental vs. substantial change in the L in T.U.L.I.P; for if it were a substantial change then it would cease to be Calvinism and be something else. Rather, since it's only a modification of the L then it should be appropriately categorized under the rubric of Calvinism proper.

Roger responds:

I think in the context of atonement alone, referring to Driscoll's position as modified Arminianism is accurate. However, if we look at the big picture, as you're doing, I'd agree that it is more of a modified Calvinism. As he states in the audio, he holds the other main points; he argues for predestination and election. But even his use of "modified Calvinism" is a way of saying he's breaking off from the traditional Reformed view. 

Which I think it would be still called Calvinism, wouldn't it?  I could be nitpickin (as they say in TX) here but the issue that I subconsciously was having an argument with is the fact that many of the strong reformed Calvinist declare that any of the slightest modifications to the T.U.L.I.P will make you a ….let me see…where is that list…..oh yeah, a:

• Arminian
• Calvinian
• Remonstrant (or Remonster)
• Neo-Cals
• Sublapsarianist

Oh yeah, and Thomists.

Anyways, Roger did a good job of laying out the issues he says does not make Mark Driscoll a reformed Calvinist. Take some time and head over there to see the interesting post and the responses to it. Oh, and BTW, I would like to add that one reason I am not an arminian is that it doesn't have a cute acronym like T.U.L.I.P. 

Digg It!

4 comments.

Does believing the gospel save us?

I don’t think that believing the gospel saves us. Let me s’plain as Ricky Ricardo would have said.

Belief can be understood epistemologically (head) or volitionally (heart).

• Belief (1): Epistemologically, belief is not sufficient for salvation   (e.g., the demons believe in God in this sense. James 2:19).   A person can believe that the gospel is true, and yet reject it.   I have known many people who believe that the gospel is true, but do not want to yield to Holy Spirit. 

• Belief (2): Volitionally, belief means to confide or to put one’s trust in the object of one’s belief (e.g., the demons do not believe IN God in this sense James 2:19).

I think that a person must first believe (1) the gospel, so that the Holy Spirit convicts that person of their sin and of their need for salvation. Then they must believe (1) that God has the ability to save them.  Then, they must cryout to be saved and then believe (2) in Him for their salvation.

In other words, all those who believe (2) in God are those who have believed (1) the gospel.

However, not everyone who has believed (1) the gospel believes (2) in God; hence, God does not save them, for God only saves those who believe (2) in Him.

So properly speaking believing (1) the gospel does not save you.  Rather, God save you through the believing (1) of the gospel, which can lead to belief (2) in God.

Digg It!

no comments yet.

Q & A: Is faith the efficient cause of salvation? Part Deux

There have been some responses and counter responses to this issue that merit this as a posting. I will post the answers given by Reformation Theology and then the subsequent responses. This makes it better than going to see the comments all the time. 

Original:

My critique of this common response:

Dear Alejandra K. Cares Henriquez

Thanks for your extended response. A few things need to be said with regard to your assertions:

you said >>>>

By grace through faith you are saved, NOT, by grace you can have faith and are saved.

Actually it is not grace PLUS faith that one is saved but grace through faith. Faith is the instrument which takes hold of Christ and his work, but it has no redemptive value in itself. It is the Holy Spirit which unites us to Christ through faith, not because of it. We all agree that a person must believe for justification before God. But no one is naturally willing to submit to the gospel (Rom 3:11, 12; John 3:3). Faith is not part of the price of redemption, as you would have it. Look at the context of the passage you are quoting: it says, "even when we were dead in our trespasses, [God] quickened us (made us alive) together with Christ–by grace you have been saved." In other words, an unregenerate man who does not have the Holy Spirit, cannot understand spiritual things, they are foolishness to him (1 Cor 2:14). Apart from the Holy Spirit, man has no free will to believe the gospel. His will is in bondage to the corruption of nature. Are you claiming that a person, dead in sin, blind, deaf to the things of God, desires Christ apart from a supernatural work of the Spirit? There is overwhelming evidence to overthrow this false understanding.

C.H. Spurgeon, in his "Fire: the Want of the Times" once said:

"Brethren, there is nothing in the gospel, apart from the Spirit of God, which can save a man, for man hates the gospel with all his heart! Though the reasonableness of the gospel of Jesus ought to make the belief of it universal, yet its plain dealing with human sin excites deadly antagonism. Therefore, the gospel itself would make no progress were it not for the divine power. There is an invisible arm which pushes forward the conquests of the truth. There is a fire unfed with human fuel, which burns a way for the truth of Jesus Christ into the hearts of men."

Your response presupposes that man has a 'free will' but does the the Bible gives any evidence of this?. May I ask where the Bible tells us a man has a free will, or are you using unaided logic alone to draw this conclusion? It appears, from my perspective at least, that you are claiming that, apart from the Holy Spirit opening his heart, a person, of his natural strength, can open their own dark heart to the light having a natural desire for spiritual things. But can the unspiritual desire the spiritual? Does the unspiritual have the mind of Christ that he might understand spiritual things? More

Response:

(more…)

Digg It!

1 comment.

Q & A: Is faith the efficient cause of salvation?

Is faith an instrumental or an efficient cause of salvation? The reason I ask this question is because the quote below got me thinking about it. It is a response to a questioner in regards to whether faith is a gift. The questioner asserted that faith is our response through free will to God's grace. And the response given was this:

Actually it is not grace PLUS faith that one is saved but grace through faith. Faith is the instrument which takes hold of Christ and his work, but it has no redemptive value in itself. It is the Holy Spirit which unites us to Christ through faith, not because of it. We all agree that a person must believe for justification before God. But no one is naturally willing to submit to the gospel (Rom 3:11, 12; John 3:3). Faith is not part of the price of redemption, as you would have it. Look at the context of the passage you are quoting: it says, "even when we were dead in our trespasses, [God] quickened us (made us alive) together with Christ–by grace you have been saved." —Found here

Max Herrera from Battle for God answers:

Dicendum est (it ought to be said) that two things must be considered to resolve whether or not the will is involved in being saved.  First, the argument against the will’s inability to respond to God.  Second, in what sense is the will a cause of being saved.

The will’s inability to respond to God

Some people, Calvinists, interpret "dead in our sins" and "spiritually dead" as incapable to respond to God because dead things do not respond. The spirit in the unsaved man is dead, therefore, it cannot respond.

However, the Calvinist’s interpretation is based on a false analogy, for to say a thing is "spiritually dead" does not entail that it is unresponsive.  Consider Satan who is a spirit and who is alive. Is Satan spiritually alive and the unbeliever spiritually dead?  If the unbeliever is spiritually dead afortiori Satan is also spiritually dead. Yet, one finds Satan responding to God in the book of Job.  Thus, it is not the case that a spiritually dead entity cannot respond to God.

Furthermore, in every metaphor, which is a form of analogy, there is a part that is similar and a part that is dissimilar.  Moreover, metaphors communicate similarity in action.  Unfortunately, the Calvinist has erred by grasping on to the dissimilar aspect of the analogy: unresponsiveness.  Instead, of grasping to the part of the analogy that is similar: separation.

Physical death is the separation of body and soul. Similarly, Spiritual death is the separation of a person from God.  However, the separation is not ontological; rather, it is relational. Thus, to say, that a person is “spiritually dead” means that the person is NOT rightly related to God, whereas to say that a person is “spiritually alive” means that the person IS rightly related to God.   So, when a person goes from being "spiritually dead" to "spiritually alive," one does not go from unresponsive to responsive as the Calvinist would have us believe; rather, one goes from not being rightly related to God to being rightly related to God.

Causality and the will

The person is speaking metaphorically when he says that faith is the "instrument."  All instruments (e.g., hammers) are instrumental causes when used, but not all instrumental causes are instruments. Faith is an instrumental cause, but it is not an "instrument." Properly speaking, faith is in an "act of the will," which is instrumental in salvation unless one is a Calvinist who denies that man's will has any bearing on salvation.

Moreover, salvation is not a thing; properly speaking salvation is an "act performed by God."  That is why one cannot give back salvation because it was never a thing (e.g., a stone, a gift box, etc.), which can be exchanged between two persons.  The term salvation is the substantive form of "being saved" in the same manner that "grasp" is the substantive form of "grasping."  For example, when I say, I have a pen in my grasp, I am saying, "I am grasping a pen."  Thus, an action "grasping" is being expressed in language as a noun "grasp."  The same applies to the term "salvation."  Thus, both faith and salvation are acts: the former is performed by man and the latter is performed by God.

Think of it this way, when Peter was sinking, he realized his lost condition and cried Lord save me, and immediately Jesus reached down and saved him.  The same is true about us, when we realize our lost condition, we cry out (an act of our will) Lord save us, and it is He who reaches down and saves us.  Thus, the cry for help is initiated by us, and our believing that He is able to save us  is the impetus for our crying out.  Yet, crying out for help and believing that He can save us will not save us unless God reaches down and saves us.  Were faith an efficient cause of salvation, one could be saved apart from God, which is not possible according to Scripture.

Digg It!

5 comments.