Back in December, 2005 I wrote an article for Biblical Worldview magazine. At one point they had all issues available online but have since taken everything down. I scanned the article and have included it below.
SEMPER PARATUS
This blog is taken up with Christian Theology, Philosophy, and Apologetics, and sometimes with other things that interest me. All of it aims to glorify God, edify His people, and present the intellectual and spiritual challenge of the Gospel to unbelievers (from atheists to Muslims).
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Sunday, March 1, 2015
The Moral Law is Forever Binding on All
The idea that God could set aside or change His moral law is
blatantly unbiblical and repugnant to the Father’s love for the Son.
First, according to the Bible, the law is a transcription of
God’s holiness, righteousness, and perfection. This is why the Law instructs us
to be holy, righteous, and perfect because God is holy, righteous, and perfect (Lev.
11:44-45, 19:2, 20:7, 26; something the New Testament unapologetically repeats –
e.g. Matt. 5:48, 1 Pet. 1:16).
In light of this, to say that God’s moral norms have changed
necessarily presupposes either that God Himself has changed or that God is at
variance with Himself. Both of these notions are contradicted by Scripture, the
former by what James says, i.e. that with “God there is neither variableness, nor
shadow cast by turning” —the same James, by the way, who defines sin as
transgression of the Law (Jms. 2:9), even citing in the process the summary of
God’s moral law found in the Decalogue (Jms. 2:8-13)— and the second is
contradicted by what Paul told Timothy, namely, that God cannot deny Himself (2
Tim. 2:13)—the same Paul who also referred to the Old Testament as inspired by
God and therefore “profitable for teaching, reproof, for correction, for
training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for
every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16). The immutability and absolute consistency of
God are everywhere presupposed in Scripture, easily deducible from sundry
truths of Scripture, and are explicitly asserted in Scripture. When this is coupled
with the fact that the law is a revelation of God Himself, of His righteous
character, of His holiness, of his goodness, then it follows that the moral law
has neither been set aside nor changed. (BTW, any Christian who rejects the
eternally binding nature of the moral law should forever forego arguing for
God’s existence on the basis of absolute, universal, invariant laws of
morality. When a Christian says that morality has changed, he has said nothing other
than what atheists are forced to say by the dictates of their philosophy,
though Christians can’t reason consistently by that assumption any better than atheists can. Autonomy is just as philosophically
preposterous for a Christian as it is for an atheist, though the former have
even less excuse for it, which is saying a lot since Paul says non-Christians
have NO excuse – Rom. 1:20.)
Second, given God’s free and gracious decision to save man,
the work of Christ in satisfying divine justice by his vicarious, sacrificial,
atoning death became an absolute necessity. This clearly follows from our
Lord’s own plea to the Father that if there be any other way to redeem lost
sinners that the Father would remove from Christ the cup of His wrath (Matt.
26:39; Mk. 14:36; Lk. 22:42). The very fact that the Father did not remove the
cup, as He surely would have had there been any other way, shows that there was
no other way. However, if God can change or set aside His moral law as some allege,
then there would have been another way to rescue sinners, i.e. God could have
simply changed or set aside His law by which sinners are consigned to wrath for
their sins, and then he could have waived his hand and declared bygones to be
bygones (“For where there is no law, there is no transgression” – Rom. 4:15).
In effect, those who say God’s moral laws are mutable and dispensable are
obligated by the demands of consistency to say that the Father delivered the
Son of His love over to death when He didn’t have to do so, and that He
rejected the Son’s request in spite of there being another way of saving
sinners that would have spared His beloved Son the accursed death of the cross.
Accordingly, any denial of the ethical continuity of Scripture from
Genesis to Revelation ought to be completely rejected by those who hold to the
orthodox doctrine of God as unchangeable and self-consistent and of Christ as
the beloved Son of the Father.
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
A Run of the Mill Attack on Calvinism
Part Three
More
knowledgeable writers than Mr. Mills on Calvinism and Islam recognize the disparities that
obtain between the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination set forth in the
previous post and its Islamic counterpart, the latter of which is more
appropriately seen as a version of fatalism. No less an authority than Samuel
Zwemer, appropriately dubbed the Apostle
to Islam, noted the differences between the two and sought to elucidate them:
THE
sixth great point of faith in Islam is Predestination, and it has important
bearing on the Moslem idea of God. It expresses God's relation to the creature
and to man as a moral agent. Although the terms used in describing
predestination by Moslems and Christians (especially Calvinists) have much
similarity the result of their reasoning is as far apart as the East from the
West. It has often been asserted that the Mohammedan belief in God's eternal
decrees and foreknowledge of good and evil is a sort of Oriental Calvinism.
This, as we hope to show, is not the case. [Zwemer, The Moslem Doctrine of God: An Essay on the Character and Attributes of
Allah According to the Koran and Orthodox Tradition (New York: American
Tract Society, 1905), pp. 93-94. This book can be read in its entirety at the
following link: here]
Zwemer
goes on to demarcate the differences, noting, among other things, that
Christianity fully affirms the reality of secondary causes and agents while
Islam tends towards their denial. That is, in Christianity, God ordains not
only that certain ends will be realized or actualized; he also ordains that
they will come to pass by certain means. Moreover, while God ordains the means
just as surely as He ordains the ends, the secondary causes or agents, particularly
in the case of human beings, always act in accord with their own nature and
desires. The Biblical or Calvinistic view on this has already been presented. On the other hand, Islam’s denial of human responsibility for what has been decreed is pointedly
set forth in the following hadith:
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Adam and Moses
argued with each other. Moses said to Adam. 'O Adam! You are our father who
disappointed us and turned us out of Paradise.' Then Adam said to him, 'O
Moses! Allah favored you with His talk (talked to you directly) and He wrote (the Torah) for you with His own
hand. Do you blame me for action
which Allah had written in my fate forty years before my creation?' So Adam
confuted Moses, Adam confuted Moses," the Prophet added, repeating the
statement three times. (Bukhari, 77.611; see also Muslim 33.6409,
33.6411)
The
disparity between the Christian and the Muslim view on these points is
well-captured and illustrated by Lorraine Boettner:
Practically,
Mohammedanism holds to a predestination of ends regardless of means. The
contrast with the Christian system is seen in the following story. A ship
crowded with Englishmen and Mohammedans was ploughing through the waves.
Accidentally one of the passengers fell overboard. The Mohammedans looked after
him with indifference, saying, “If it is written in the book of destiny that he
shall be saved, he shall be saved without us; and if it is written that he
shall perish, we can do nothing”; and with that they left him. But the
Englishmen said, “Perhaps it is written that we should save him.” They threw
him a rope and he was saved. [Boettner, The
Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Philippsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932), p. 320.]
And so,
while Calvinistic Christianity, which is just to say, Biblical Christianity, holds
man to be fully accountable or responsible for his actions, the logical
conclusion of the Islamic system is that man is not properly spoken of as being
responsible for his actions, though he is still subject to Allah’s whims and
punishment.
Hence,
Mr. Mills' claim that Calvinism naturally leads one to Islam since the two teach
the same thing regarding divine sovereignty and human responsibility is far
from the truth.
In
addition, while it is true that there are Muslims who believe in
predestination, it is also true that many Muslims reject this doctrine in favor
of something more akin to Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism and/or Arminianism. For
example, Yusuf Ali, the famed commentator of a very popular translation of the
Qur’an, claims to find proof for free will all over the place, albeit man’s
free will is limited in some respects by Allah’s choices regarding at least
“big” matters (such as maintaining the stars in their orbits), something readily
affirmed by Semi-Pelagians.
For
instance, the following verse of the Qur’an states:
Say:
“The Truth is from your Lord”: let him who will believe and let him who will
reject (it): for the wrongdoers We have prepared a Fire whose (smoke and
flames) like the wall and roof of a tent will hem them in: if they implore
relief they will be granted water like melted brass that will scald their faces.
How dreadful the drink! How uncomfortable a couch to recline on! (Q. 18:29)
In his
commentary on this verse, Yusuf Ali says:
Our choice in our limited Free-will involves a corresponding personal responsibility. We are offered the Truth:
again and again is it pressed on our attention. If we reject it, we must take
all the terrible consequences which are prefigured in the Fire of Hell. Its
flames and roof will completely enclose us like a tent. Ordinarily there is
water to quench the heat of thirst: here the only drink will be like molten
brass, thick, heavy, burning, sizzling. Before it reaches the mouth of the
unfortunates, drops of it will scald their faces as it is poured out. (Footnote
#2371.)
(For
more comments from Yusuf Ali on the Qur’anic support for free will, see the
following footnotes for starters: #186, 628, 860, 866, 1333, 1392, 1490, 1503, 1622, 1802, 2057, 2133,
2229, 2247, 2252, 2253, 2395, 2573, 3557, 3644, 3788, 4012, 4233, 4267, 4556, 4593,
4855, 4952, 4963, 5480, 5688, 5832, 5996, 6004, 6168. If the reader wants
further garish descriptions of hell, read the Inferno by Yusuf Ali’s Roman Catholic counterpart, Dante Alighieri.)
Predestination
is also denied by Muslims of the Ahmadiyya sect, as well as by Shiites, the
followers of Ali, Muhammad’s cousin, et al.
Since Muslims
also have their “Semi-Pelagians” and "Arminians," and since examples of Semi-Pelagians and Arminians converting to Islam are ready to hand, perhaps like Mr. Mills I should say of
someone like John Walker Lindh: “It should not surprise us when a Roman
Catholic becomes a Moslem.”
To be
continued…
Labels:
Calvinism,
Charles Mills,
Predestination
Saturday, August 2, 2014
A Run of the Mill Attack on Calvinism
Part Two
For Part
One, see here.
Here is
the first point on offer by Mr. Mills to support his claim that Calvinism leads
one to Islam…
Both [Calvinism and Islam –AR] have a constricted view of the nature of
God, a view that limits human responsibility.
In this
post I will respond to Mr. Mills’ view of Calvinism, leaving a consideration of
Islam’s doctrine of predestination to the next installment.
Since Mr.
Mills, in an attempt to confirm the above charge, goes on to write that
Calvinism teaches God’s comprehensive sovereignty over all created reality, or
at least over who will be saved or damned, one can only wonder what Mills thinks
the word “constricted” means. Such a scurrilous charge is all the more
inexplicable in light of Mills’ claim that Calvinism’s view of the nature of
God puts “limits on human responsibility.” If Calvinism’s view of God actually
does limit human responsibility, it would seem only too obvious that
Calvinism’s doctrine of God does not teach a constricted view of God’s nature but
a constricted view of human nature. To make Mills’ statement coherent, it
should be revised to say that Calvinism teaches “a constricting view of the nature of God, i.e. one
that limits human responsibility.”
In any
case, while it is certainly true that Calvinists believe in the sovereignty of
God, and while this does place definite limits on all created reality,
including mankind, confessional Calvinism has never thought or taught that this
limits human responsibility. While God decreed, planned, and purposed
everything that was and is to happen, by His providence He caused and causes it
all to come to pass through that natural liberty with which He has endowed
secondary agents. The Bible itself teaches the complete compatibility of divine
sovereignty and human responsibility. The following two verses are representative
of this teaching, for in both the sovereign goodness of God in planning and
bringing the events to pass is affirmed while at the same time the human agents
that brought these events about are upbraided for their evil intent and the
lawlessness of their actions.
Genesis
50:15-21
When
Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “It may be that
Joseph will hate us and pay us back for all the evil that we did to him.” So
they sent a message to Joseph, saying, “Your father gave this command before he
died: ‘Say to Joseph, “Please forgive the transgression of your brothers and
their sin, because they did evil to you.” And now, please forgive the
transgression of the servants of the God of your father.” Joseph wept when they
spoke to him. His brothers also came and fell down before him and said,
“Behold, we are your servants.” But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, YOU meant evil against me, but GOD
meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept
alive, as they are today. So do not fear; I will provide for you and your
little ones.” Thus he comforted them and spoke kindly to them.
Acts
4:22-24
Men
of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God
with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst,
as you yourselves know—this Jesus,
delivered up according to the definite
plan and foreknowledge of God,
you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless
men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not
possible for him to be held by it.
In fact,
Calvinism does not merely teach the utter compatibility of God’s sovereignty
and human responsibility, as if the two are merely to be thought of as consistent
with one another and no more. Calvinism actually teaches that it is only on the
Biblically grounded presupposition that God is the sovereign creator as well as
providential sustainer and governor of everything is human responsibility a
reality. As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it:
God
from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will,
freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby
neither is God the author of sin, nor is
violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or
contingency of second causes taken away, but
rather established. (“Of God’s Eternal Decree,” Chapter III, Section 1.)
It is
precisely because God created (Genesis 1:1, John 1:1-3; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6),
upholds (Hebrews 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-17), and governs all events, things,
and people (Lamentations 3:37-38, Ephesians 1:11), and through the works of
creation and all the motions of providence reveals Himself and His righteous
requirements (Psalm 19:1-7, Romans 1:18-32, Acts 14:15-17, 17:24-28), that
human beings are obligated at all points to render unto Him whatsoever worship,
service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them. To deny God’s sovereign
Lordship at any point is to deny human responsibility at precisely that point.
According to Calvinism then, man, the special object of God’s works of creation
and providence – indeed, man as the image bearer of God – is face to face with
God everywhere and at all times, even when he looks in the mirror. We were made
in His image and it is in Him that we live and move and have our being. For
from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever.
Amen.
In
short, the reality of human responsibility is grounded upon and presupposes
divine sovereignty in order to even be possible or intelligible. To unseat God
from His Lordly throne and place chance or human autonomy in His place is the
only way one can hope to do away with human responsibility. Only on the assumption of human autonomy can it be said that man is not a responsible agent. Since Mr. Mills does
not deny human responsibility but in fact affirms it and uses it in his
argument, it must frankly be said that Mr. Mills has not only failed to impugn
Calvinism but has shown that he can’t even intelligibly attempt to do so apart
from depending on the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob…and, yes, Calvin.
For Part Three, go here.
Labels:
Calvinism,
Charles Mills,
Predestination
Friday, August 1, 2014
A Run of the Mill Attack on Calvinism
Part One
In
an opinion piece written for Western Journalism by Charles G. Mills, which is
titled From
Calvinism to Islam, the author, a Roman Catholic, takes several
ill-informed and misdirected swipes at Calvinism.
The
foil for Mills’ attack is the recent Bergdahl affair, and it is the latest instance
of what may well turn into a trend, as witness the relatively recent and equally
wild flailing of Dr. Mary Stange, likewise in an opinion piece (USA Today), who
also used the Bergdahl situation to attack Calvinism: Can
Bergdahl’s faith explain his actions? (For those who are interested,
several responses to Dr. Stange can be found in the following articles: A
Response to Professor Mary Stange’s USA Today Article on Bowe Bergdahl, Helping
the media understand Bergdahl and his religious past, USA
Today Slams the Reformed Faith…A Slight Rebuttal.)
According
to Mr. Mills, Bowe Bergdahl and his father “are said by some to have become
Muslims,” a bit of unsubstantiated gossip that Mr. Mills, undoubtedly hastened
by his unwillingness to be bogged down with the pesky business of presenting
evidence, and justified by the opportunity it provided him to lampoon
Calvinism, turned into an established fact in the short space of two sentences.
Nevertheless, as interesting as all that is, it isn’t my intention here to
probe into the truth or falsity of what some people have said about the alleged
conversions of Bob and Bowe Bergdahl. Neither is it my intention to upbraid the
author for all too easily hopping on the rumor mill, an effort that would quite
possibly only cause him to swell with pride that he is living up to the family
name. I’m also not interested here in
going on at any length about how Mills' evident ability to transubstantiate a
rumor into a fact through a bit of verbal legerdemain shows that he missed his
calling as a priest in the Catholic church which, as every self-respecting Catholic
knows, is where the real hocus pocus takes place. Instead, what agitates this
response is the following statement made by Mr. Mills:
Bowe
Bergdahl was home-schooled and raised as a very strict Calvinist. It should not
surprise us that a Calvinist has become a Moslem. The two religions have much
in common.
As
this response to Mills will demonstrate, what he believes about Calvinism and
Islam shows that he knows very little about either, which is perhaps Mills’ way
of living out Rome’s teaching on implicit faith, i.e. belief devoid of personal
knowledge.
As
Mills would have it, Calvinism and Islam have the following four things in
common, and these commonalities make a transition from the former to the latter
both easy and natural:
- “Both have a constricted view of the nature of God, a view that limits human responsibility.”
- “Calvinism and Islam are characterized by unjust and harsh laws.”
- “Both Islam and Calvinism practice an extreme form of textual literalism in understanding scripture.”
- “…both Islam and Calvinism produce self-righteousness and intolerance.”
Each
of these claims will be dealt with in several future installments. For now, the reader
can smart from the fact that it is a Roman Catholic who is leveling the charge
that Calvinism makes it easy to convert to Islam. After all, it was a Pope,
not Calvin, who said to Muslim youth: “We believe in the same God, the one God,
the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their
perfection,”(*)
a statement every bit in conformity with Vatican II (See Nostra Aetate, Lumen Gentium,
Ch. II, sec. 16, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 841.). And it
was Calvin, not a Pope, who said:
John’s saying has always been true: “He that
does not have the Son does not have the Father” [1 John 2:23 p.]. For even if
men once boasted that they worshipped the Supreme Majesty, the Maker of heaven
and earth, yet because they had no Mediator it was not possible for them truly
to taste God’s mercy, and thus be persuaded that he was their Father.
Accordingly, because they did not hold Christ as their Head, they possessed
only a fleeting knowledge of God. From this it also came about that they at
last lapsed into crass and foul superstitions and betrayed their own ignorance.
So today the Turks [i.e. Muslims –AR], although they proclaim at the top of
their lungs that the Creator of heaven and earth is God, still, while
repudiating Christ, substitute an idol in place of the true God. [John T.
McNeill, editor, Ford Lewis Battles, trans., Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1960), Vol. I, II:6:4.]
For part two, go here.
Labels:
Calvinism,
Charles Mills,
Predestination
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)