A Balanced View on Predestination
- 02/7/2008
This article investigates the subject of election and predestination. Although Arminians and Calvinists have polarized in attempts to explain their position, most times, they've left out Scriptures. Ray argues for a different position by considering God's view from eternity. The difference is how Ray views eternity as the "eternal now" and not the long corridor of time that both Calvinists and Arminians employ.
Introduction
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 afree agent. Can the two coexist? Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange stated it this way: "How can predestination, which is infallible in its effect, be reconciledwith 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?
The Reformed View
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 ofdeliberation. 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 fromthe 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 tosupport this claim. Simply, predestination is an act of God's will towards acertain 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,
"Thereis 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 wills 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.
Reprobation
Without flinching Ames states, "Reprobation is the predestination of certain men so that the glory of God's justice may be shown in them."[14] As in election there are three acts in reprobation. The first act is to will the application of God's justice. Ames says that the first act is not the destruction of the creature but willing the "divine justice which shines forth in deserved destruction." The second act is to designate men upon whom this justice will be served. The third act of reprobation is the intention to use means by which the justice is served.
Ames makes a significant point is distinguishing between election and reprobation. Reprobation is not election because election is determined by love which separates those who are reprobate. Those who are reprobate do not deserve the mercy of God either, so God does no wrong in not bestowing the blessing of election upon them. Another difference between election and reprobation is that in election God bestows blessing on the elect but the "hatred" shown to the reprobate only denies good - it does not bring or inflict evil because the reprobate deserves it. The third difference is that the means used to bring justice is "the permission to sin and abandonment to sin."
This is a brief summary and general view of Ames' view of predestination. As a seventeenth century Puritan, Ames embellished Calvin's teaching and drove home the nail of what is termed "strict Calvinsim" or "extreme Calvinism." The part of predestination called "unconditional election" is what has been discussed. The reformed tradition in general holds to this position but emphasizes different aspects of it. Most reformed theologians do not readily bring up unconditional election because of the controversy involved. Yet, they would hold to the view of God electing some and rejecting others simply as an act of His will.
An Evaluation of William Ames' Reformed View
The Good
It is plain to see that William Ames seeks to give God all the glory. Perhaps he is driven by what is called " theologism."[15] As a reformer he holds a significantly high view of God which fuels his soteriology as well as his anthropology. A. W. Tozer, noted author, stated that, "No people has ever risen above its religion, and man's spiritual history will positively demonstrate that no religion has ever been greater than its idea of God.[16] Ames has a high view of God.
Ames also sees the wisdom of God at work in salvation or redemption. God is the author of salvation. Without His initiative there is no salvation or redemption of mankind, let alone individuals. In this, Ames sees that predestination came from eternity which is clearly stated in the Scripture, (See Eph 1:5). He rightly states that predestination is according to God's divine wisdom,freedom, firmness, and immutability.
Althoughit is not evident from the quotations above, Ames was well read in many medieval scholars such as Peter Lombard (1100?-1164), Bonaventure (1221-1274),Duns Scotus (1265?-1308), Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), Thomas Cajetan(1469-1534), and especially Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).[17] He is said to have"mined the veins of silver" these philosopher/theologians provided. However, it ought to be clearly stated he was not of the same "spirit" as they.[18] Ames leaned heavily on Puritan writers while he consulted with the medieval scholars.
Lastly, Ames anchors his statements in the Scripture which opens the dialogue to interpretation and consideration.
What is Wrong with William Ames' View? - the Arminian View
First and foremost of arguments against Ames' view of predestination is that of micro-managing. It appears that God micro-manages everyone, both the elect andthe reprobate. A God who must micro-manage everyone is a God who cannot allow free will. At first glance,this would make God a "pupiteer." As such, this would not give God glory of anykind.
According to Eudsen, the translator of William Ames', The Marrow of Theology, Ames was to use a "dialectical" approach to his construct his theology.[19] This dialectical approach was to consider extremes in the Scripture and come to the conclusion by weighing each of the extremes. In a dialectic approach the conclusion is the balance of the two extremes taking good from both. However,it can be noted that Ames does not use one Scripture which speaks to man's ability to choose. He uses no referent to present any evidence in the opposite extreme. Over the forty-one points aims uses to support his view of predestination, not once does he give any evidence that the Scripture must reconcile two variant views.
Consider this verse from 2 Corinthians: "Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, asthough God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God."[20] The first point of argument from this Scripture is to ask why God was making an appeal through Paul and his companions? If God sovereignly saves men why must He make an appeal? Perhaps that is not the strongest argument. However, it does present an image of God playing a sort of game. If man has no part in salvation, why does Paul urge the Corinthians to be, "reconciled to God?" Once again it would seem that God is playing a game if indeed the Corinthians had no choice to be reconciled to God. To say it inother words: If the Corinthians had no choice in either being reconciled, or worse, were reprobate, this is a very cruel game.
Robert Shank gives a compelling illustration using the nation of Israel as an example. Commenting on the passage in Romans chapters nine-eleven he makes these significant points: 1) Israel's fall was because of unbelief (9:30-33), 2) Israel's fall is not final (10:1-17), 3) Her unhappiness is the result of her own rejection of the gracious appeals and overtures of God (10:18-21), 4) Despite Israel's fall, God has not cast away His people: there is yet an Israel within Israel, elect by grace (11:1-6), 5) The Israel of the flesh, though blinded are not beyond recovery if they will turn from unbelief (11:7-24), and 6) The ultimate recovery of Israel collectively, still beloved for the fathers' sakes, and the blessing of Israel together with the Gentiles is certain in the purposes of God (11:25-36).[21]
Shank is an Arminian and therefor directly opposes the Calvinist view Ames holds. As an Arminian, he believes that man's salvation is dependent upon his free will. God has provided salvation through Jesus Christ and now man must choose. The points made above speak of the free acts of Israel to choose the blessings or to choose rejection, or being broken off from the olive tree.[22] Neither were their acts final. There was still the possibility of some to be saved. Point four speaks of the faithfulness of God to continually make overtures to God as referenced in Romans 10:21, "All day long I have stretched out my hands to an obstinate and disobedient people." If there were no chance of their salvation,why would God continue to stretch out his hands?
Other Scriptural references of importance would be Titus 2:11, "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, . . ." There would be no argument that the grace of God referred to here is the Lord Jesus Christ. At least, He is the One who brought the grace of God. The Arminian would concur that the grace of God has appeared and in its appearing it was bringing salvation to"all" men. The fact that it brought salvation to all men does not mean that all men receive it. The verse is stating that through Jesus Christ salvation is available to all men. It is now up to the individual to choose Christ for salvation.
Ames did not deal at all with the reference in 1 Timothy 2:3-4 which states: "This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." If God "desires" all men to come to a knowledge of the truth why has he not decreed it? This is a favorite verse of those of Arminian persuasion.
Therefor the Arminian position is this: God is the author of salvation and it comes through Jesus Christ. Shank indicates his position as: "The reconciliation of all men took place objectively through Christ's death, although the subjective appropriation of it is conditioned by the faith of the individual.[23] As an Arminian, Shank would hold that faith is a condition of grace. Grace has"appeared" to all men and in order for grace to be effective it must be appropriated by faith, and the faith of an individual.
Arminians would reject the strong Calvinists position of unconditional particular election by saying that election comprehends all men potentially.[24] Arminians would also contest the unconditional nature of election that Ames would hold by saying, "The election comprehends no man unconditionally."[25]
The Arminian would certainly not hold that God predestines anyone to reprobation.The Arminian would hold that if someone is saved it is the grace of God which saved him by exercising faith. If someone is not saved it is because he has rejected the grace of God by not believing. Another way to say it is, if someone gets saved, God did it; if someone doesn't get saved they did it.
What Arminians and strong Calvinists agree with is that salvation is not a result ofworks but of grace through faith. What they would disagree with is the cause of faith. The Calvinist would hold that God only gives saving faith to the elect.That faith receives irresistible grace and they are justified. The Arminian would hold that each man who hears the gospel would have faith to believe but his own free will would decide to believe.
The question to ask is whether God's sovereignty in redemption, i.e.predestination, is at all compatible with man's ability to freely choose. The sense from the Scripture is that predestination and free will are totally incompatible.
What's Wrong With Both Views?
What appears to be significantly wrong with the reformed view, especially the one Ames has presented, is that God can do whatever He pleases. Many Christians would wonder what is wrong with that statement. Are not all things possible for God? Cannot an omnipotent, omniscient God do anything He wants? What is wrong with saying God can do whatever He pleases?
For one thing, God cannot do whatever He wants. The Scripture tells us that it is impossible for God to lie[26] and also God cannot deny Himself.[27] There are two things that God cannot do. Logically, God cannot make square circles nor can He make a one ended stick.
What those of either end of the spectrum do not explore is the nature of God. God cannot lie, or it is impossible for God to lie because it is against His nature. The "essentialist" view of God holds that God only acts according to His nature. Therefor when the Scripture tells us it is impossible for God to lie, it is because God is holy; His essence is holy.
What the strong Calvinist believes is called "voluntarism." Voluntarism is the Muslim view of Allah. Allah can do whatever he wants to do because he is Allah.The strong Calvinist believes God can do whatever he wants to do because He is sovereign. Therefor God can predestine people He creates to reprobation and consign them to hell. He does so for His own good pleasure. The strong Calvinist says this is so He can reveal His justice. Although this seems to be in accord with the some Scripture, it is against God's nature and not the way He has demonstrated His dealings with mankind, especially the nation of Israel.
Another wrongly framed concept is believing that whatever glorifies God the most must be right. This is a theologism. First, we do not know what glorifies God most. And secondly, how does being a sovereign pupiteer glorify God. A God who must deal with the complex variables of six billion free wills is a more awesome God than a God who has simply programed the wills of six billion people. A God who must micro-manage every detail of salvation for every human does not seem to bean omniscient nor and omnipotent God.
Arminians on the other hand portray God as responding to man's actions. Predestination is not to individuals but to the corporate church.[28] Predestination is God's predetermination of the means He will use to save men, adoption, inheritance, and glorification.[29]
A Third Alternative
A picture that comes to mind in assessing these two ends of the spectrum is that of two train tracks. In order for the train to run successfully each of the tracks must be laid straight and even. Reviewing the two views reveals the Bible speaks of both predestination and man's free will. For centuries there has been hotly debated arguments concerning this subject. In presenting a third alternative and revealing a false dilemma draws comments derogatory from both sides.
Dr. Norman L. Geisler who presents a third orthodox position is called an Arminian by those who hold the reformed view.[30] Although there is no referent Arminians would undoubtedly consider anyone who mentioned God's sovereignty in salvation as a "Calvinist."[31] Geisler introduces the third alternative as a moderate Calvinist.[32] The point here is that the two extremes cannot conceive of a third alternative. It is as if Arminians and strong Calvinists have built a theological grid from their study of Scripture. That grid then becomes the guide to interpreting all other Scriptures. The grid is place over the Bible and whatever Scriptures do not fit the grid are erased, i.e., ignored, or worse yet, misinterpreted. The Scripture no longer is the authority for doctrine but the grid is.
What Dr. Geisler asserts is that predestination and free will are not incompatible. Man is morally responsible for his choices and God is sovereign over "[33] all that happens, including the salvation of saints and the condemnation of unrepentant sinners." Dr. Geisler sites two well know subjects to establishthis claim, the cross of Christ and those who crucified Jesus. God determined how Jesus would die on a cross by his predetermined plan and foreknowledge.[34] We also see that Jesus freely laid his life down.[35]
Those who crucified Jesus put him to death by nailing to the cross.[36] They were also unaware that this was the plan of God. From the Cross Jesus asked His Father to forgive them "for they do not know what they are doing."[37] If these men who crucified Jesus were not morally responsible for their actions, why would Jesus ask His Father to forgive them. It would be unnecessary.
So how does it work? How does God's sovereignty and man's free will work together? If they are not incompatible they must work in harmony together. The nature ofGod must be considered, namely His simplicity, and also how time and eternity relate. The nature of God concerning His simplicity is foundational to understanding the love of God as well as the other attributes. Simplicity is the opposite of composition. God is not composed of parts but one. It goes further. "It is the absence of all compounding of different parts, the absence of alldivision."[38] What he says after this concerning simplicity is extremely important.
There cannot be any distinction of quantitative parts as in matter. Every material thing has extended parts that are contiguous, whether these parts are similar as in the diamond, or different like the members and the organs of a living being: the eyes, ears, and the rest. The simplicity of God, on the contrary, is the simplicity of pure spirit, incomparably superior to that of the purest diamond, or to the unity of the most perfect organism.[39]
God's simplicity is His oneness. He is not composed of parts. Neither is He subject nor does He participate in "quantitative degrees." God's love is not quantitatively greater for some than for others. And, it could be said that God loves all the beings He has created. That is not to say that He loves what these beings do. In God's simplicity there is no imperfection or any kind ofcomposition. If there were composition than someone else would have had to compose Him. That would make God something other than the first cause of all causes.
God's love for His creatures flows from His nature. The idea that God loves only some men and not all men is not commensurate with His nature. Simplicity also explains how God in His love must judge the sinner. Justice and mercy are united in His simplicity without destroying each other. God hates sin and always will. He judges the person who chooses sin against loving Him.
How does this work out in time? Time is a succession of measured moments and most people think of eternity as a duration without beginning and without end. Hence eternity is seen as endless time. This is an inadequate view of eternity. Garrigou-Lagrange defines eternity as "an everlasting present."[40] Even if time were endless, because it is a measurement of moments there is always a before and an after. Garrigou-Lagrange gives this definition:
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 of past or future, but an everlasting present.[41]
Now it may be easier to understand how God views time from eternity. He is not looking down the proverbial "corridor of time." But looking from the "summit of this eternity of His, God sees in a single glance the whole series of generations succeeding one another in time, as man from the top of a mountaincan see in one glance all who pass on their way in the valley below."[42] Garrigou-Lagrange goes on to describe the uniqueness of eternity: "Thus the unique, unvarying instant of eternity corresponds to each successive moment of time, the moments of our birth and death included.."[43]
Now consider God decreeing in eternity the salvation of man and the free choice of man corresponding to that in time. The decree and the free choice are concurrent. This may be easier to apprehend than to comprehend, hence the mystery of God in salvation. However, wrestling with the concept of eternity as the "everlasting present" without before and after, and seeing God as the one who looks down on all time in one glance, one can see the concurrent view ofGod's sovereign election and man's free choice in harmony. It can be said that God has decreed from eternity and man has freely chosen in time therefor the two concepts of God's predestination and man's free will are not incompatible.Therefor God does have perfect knowledge of not only how many are elect but knows them by name. He has decreed their salvation.
What is repugnant is the idea that God has created some specifically for reprobation. If that were true God would have to will for man to sin which He cannot, as it is against His nature. God can use man's sinful acts in His providence as He is all wise, but God does not will for man to sin. God can be glorified in His judgment of sinful men but His desire is for all men to come to know Him.[44] God creates man with the potential to sin, which, as potential can also choose to love Him by the grace offered to him.
Dr.Geisler's view as a moderate Calvinist, one who sees God's sovereignty yet sees man's free will compatible with it, is the only one that embraces both ideas.It does build a grid of theology but does not erase the Scripture to produce its position. In fact, the Scripture supports it. The moderate Calvinist view is the train which runs on the two tracks of God's sovereign predestination and man's free will.
Conclusion
In critiquing Ames' view of strong or strict Calvinism with an Arminian view, the conflict becomes apparent. When cornered the Calvinist will say that if there is another free will other than God's, then God cannot be sovereign. As pointed out above, sovereignty over people without free choice is simply micro-managing, not ruling. God is no less sovereign, in fact, He is completely sovereign to rule His worldwith billions of free wills in operation. The infinite wisdom and knowledge of God permit Him to do so. God is no pupiteer. Certainly, God wills good to all His creatures, free will chooses to accept or to reject His unconditional love.
The Arminian sees a world ruled by man and God responding to his choices. The sovereignty of God as the author of salvation, the cause of salvation is not primary. At this point the moderate Calvinist sees differently. God chooses in eternity, man either accepts or rejects in time as these concurrently happen. When saints are assigned to eternal life God has performed a wondrous work.When sinners are assigned to eternal damnation, they have chosen to reject the goodness and grace of God.
End Notes
[1]Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Predestination, trans. Dom Bede Rose,(Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1939) 24
[2]William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, translation and introduction by John,Dystra, Eudsen, (Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1968) 154
[3]Ibid.
[4]Eph 1:4; 2 Tim 1:9
[5]Ames, 152
[6]Rom 9:22-23; 1 Thess 5:9
[7]Ames, 152
[8]Ibid.
[9]Ibid., 153
[10]Eph 1:5
[11]Eph 1:9
[12]Ames, 153-154
[13]See Rom 9:13
[14]Ames, 155, See also Rom 9:22; 2 Thess 2:12; Jude 4
[15]A theologism is whatever gives God the most or greater glory.
[16]A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, The Attributes of God: Their Meaning in the Christian Life, (New York: Harper and Row, 1961), 9
[17]JohnD. Eudsen, Introduction to The Marrow of Theology, by William Ames, (Boston:The Pilgrim Press, 1968) 17
[18]Ibid., 17
[19]Ibid., 41
[20]2 Cor 5:20
[21]Robert Shank, Elect in the Son, (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1989),120
[22]Rom 11:17
[23]Shank, 130
[24]Ibid., 99
[25]Ibid., 108
[26]Heb 6:18
[27]2 Tim 2:13
[28]Shank,162
[29]Ibid.
[30]James White, The Potter's Freedom, (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000),24
[31]Arminians would not recognize the difference between a "strong Calvinist" and a "moderateCalvinist."
[32]NormanL. Geisler, Chosen But Free, Second Edition (Minneapolis: Bethany HousePublishers, 2001) 26
[33]Ibid.,38
[34]Acts2:23
[35]John10:17-18
[36]Acts2:23
[37]Luke23:34
[38]Fr.Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Providence, trans. Dom Bede Rose (Rockford, IL: TanBooks, 1937) 81
[39]Ibid.
[40]Ibid.,111
[41]Ibid.
[42]Ibid.,113
[43]Ibid.
[44]1Tim 2:4
WORKS CITED
Ames,William, The Marrow of Theology, trans. John Dykstra Eudsen, Boston, ThePilgrim Press, 1968
Garrigou-Lagrange,Fr. Reginald, Predestination, trans, Dom Bede Rose, Rockford, Il: Tan Books,1939
_____________________,Providence, trans, Dom Bede Rose, Rockford, IL: Tan Books, 1937
Geisler,Norman L. Chosen But Free, Minneapolis: Bethany Book House, 2001
Shank,Robert, Elect in the Son, Minneapolis, Bethany Book House, 1989
White,James, The Potter's Freedom, Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2000
