Providence

Providence is God’s intelligent plan by which he orders all things to their appointed end. God alone plans all things but he orders things by secondary causes. Just as a good architect himself designs a building and then employs a contractor and craftsmen to build his structure; so, God uses secondary causes to fulfill all that He plans. Of these secondary causes, some are necessary causes and some are contingent causes. Another way of saying this is that some things happen by necessity and other things happen by free choice. Men and angels have free choice. This may sound unusual, but God, by His providence, conceives and orders things to happen by free choice. This can only be possible because of God’s divine power and because He stands above time.

Predestination

Predestination is a sub-set of God’s providence. Created things are planned and ordered by God’s Providence to their end in one of two ways. One way is that which is right and proper for its nature. For instance the proper end of a rock is to be a rock. A rock doesn’t need anything beyond its own nature to fulfill its purpose and destiny other than to be itself—a rock. However, some things that God has created have a purpose above their nature. Man has the purpose of being united with God which exceeds anything in his nature. Therefore, in order for man to achieve his divinely appointed purpose, he needs God’s supernatural (meaning, “Above nature”) assistance. This supernatural assistance is called predestination. God must positively take action on behalf of men in order to assist them in attaining their divinely appointed (providential) end—eternal life. This positive action on God’s part is called grace.

Reprobation

God’s activity is necessary to predestine men to a salvation above their natural capacity. In other words, without God’s intervention and grace, no man could achieve his end, which is union with God. This activity of predestination is a direct act of God. However, God permits those who are resistant to His grace to not achieve their purpose (union with Him). The name for this is reprobation. Reprobation is a purely negative act on God’s part (He allows it to happen). While God’s causal activity (a positive act) is necessary so that men can be predestined to salvation above their natural capacity, reprobation is not parallel to this. A simple way of saying this is that God saves the saved and the damned damn themselves. The guilt for eternal separation from God and the desertion of God’s grace rests with the free will of the person who is reprobated.

It is my view that it is a horrible thing to imagine that God both predestines some people to heaven and some people to hell. This concept is called double predestination and those people who hold to such a doctrine often do not realize that it has been formally anathemized in the West at the Council of Orange in 529 and by the Eastern Orthodox Church since the 1600’s. The Council of Orange stated:

“We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.”

You may find this hard to believe, but the modern mind is much more “authoritarian” than the ancient or medieval Christian mind. We like to think of ourselves as free from the oppressive restrictions of authoritarian beliefs and religious infallibility. However, the reality is that the ancient and medieval minds thought of human authority as fallible and weak and, therefore, the weakest of all bases for an argument. As Thomas Aquinas said, “…the argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest…” On the other hand, the modern mind bases its beliefs typically on human authorities like contemporary intellectual fashions (i.e. deconstructionism, multiculturalism, etc.), media propaganda, peer pressure, focus groups, etc. The modern mind is truly “authoritarian.” Even ancient and medieval theology was much more objective and less subjective than contemporary theology. The unintended consequence of accentuating the individual’s personal response by faith to the gospel is that the subjective emotional experience has nearly pushed the human mind completely out of Christianity. For instance, even I am surprised how many Christians get “nervous” on TFD when I mention that human reason has an important part to play in Christian teaching and doctrine. It is as if I am suggesting that Christianity should be secularized. However, from my steeped-in-medieval-theology perspective, it is the modern sentimentalized and subjective-ized Christianity that is secular. In a very famous passage from Aquinas’ Summa, he writes:

“But sacred doctrine makes use even of human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other things that are put forward in this doctrine. Since therefore grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it, natural reason should minister to faith as the natural bent of the will ministers to charity.” (Summa I, 1, 8)

The key thought here is that “grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it.” In other words, divine revelation both helps human reason by completing, clarifying, and instructing it by God’s grace and also assisting it as a tool of communicating divine truth. While sacred doctrine does not depend on human reason, it uses it as an instrument of expression. For instance, in the book of Acts the word reasoned (Gk. Dialegomai: “to converse, discourse with one, argue, discuss”) is used ten times. In all ten usages, it is the Apostle Paul that is spoken of as reasoning. Of the ten, eight of them are when Paul “reasoned” with non-believers about the gospel with the intention of evangelizing them. A classic example of Paul reasoning in order to evangelize is found in Acts 19:

Acts 19:8-10 And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. 10 And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.

Can you imagine saying to a group of modern Christians, “Hey, let’s head down to the mall to lead people to Christ by reasoning with them.” Most Christians would think you’re either a) gone mad; or b) suggesting something irreligious. Too bad.

Paris Hilton is an interesting personality for the 21st century. It has been said that she is the classic new type of celebrity that is famous simply for being famous. In other words, she has done absolutely nothing to deserve all of the media attention and adulation that she receives. This, of course, says volumes about the state of contemporary society and the dumbing down of deviancy (or common decency). There was actually a time in American history where it was believed wrong to strive for the honor and adulation of men. To do so, would have been considered a vice of character (which it still is). I think of George Washington who after the Revolutionary War and his term as president could have literally been crowned king, but stepped away from public life to live a modest lifestyle at Mount Vernon. Even though those days are long gone, even today most true Christians recognize that the Paris Hilton lifestyle of excess, vulgar consumption, superficial beauty and virtue-less importance is not something to be emulated.

On the other hand, as we look back on previous eras of history, most true Christians realize that those souls who forsook all worldly possessions and abused themselves as did the ascetic monks who sat for years atop high poles or in caves amidst high mountains went too far in depriving themselves for the purpose of trying to live a virtuous life. Most would say that this type of lifestyle doesn’t capture the essence of what Paul was meaning when he wrote:

1 Timothy 6:17 Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment.

Paul had no problem doing two things at once. For one thing, he instructed Timothy to command wealthy Christians to use their resources to do good deeds in the world. At the same time he, without blushing, notes that God provides us “richly” with “everything for our enjoyment.” Wow, what a statement! What is going on here? I think the answer is that external goods are obviously necessary for life, otherwise we will literally die; but, they are also necessary as “instruments” for true happiness in this life which consists in living virtuously.

In this life, humans need the necessities of the body in order to live. My mom used to say you have to have food, water, clothing and the like, “To keep body and soul together.” However, beyond this basic level of sustenance, physical goods serve as instruments for the virtue of contemplation and for the operation of active virtue. Let me explain. If one does not have the basic necessities of life, it becomes nearly impossible to give time to the contemplation of God’s goodness and the highest things in life. If you have ever had to life from one meal to the next you know what I mean. Additionally, active virtue is doing good in the world. In order to do good in the world I must use the things that God “provides” in a good way. I must use my time, talent and treasure in a way that not only brings me enjoyment but also blesses other people. This, of course, takes self-restraint (temperance); courage (fortitude); practical wisdom (prudence); and social responsibility (justice). The external goods of my life are the “means” that allow me to work toward the “end” of true happiness.

One of the most interesting passages in the entire Bible is Romans 7:12-25. It is here that St. Paul allows us to see his own personal struggle with conflicting moral motivations. Anyone who has read this passage and is honest will identify with Paul’s struggle where he often found himself agreeing with God’s law while disobeying it. You may be surprised to discover that Paul was not the first person to recognize the cognitive dissonance between knowing what is right and, yet, doing evil. As you may now realize I have a healthy respect for the ancient philosophers. Therefore allow me to share some Plato and Aristotle written several hundred years before Paul penned Romans.

Plato writes, "…we often see this elsewhere, when his appetites are forcing a man to act contrary to reason, and he rails at himself with that within himself which is compelling him to do so” (Republic, 4. 440a-b). Plato speaks in the third person but he still sounds strikingly similar to Paul. Plato describes this internal moral conflict as a sort of civil war within the soul between the reason, spirit, and appetite. Each of the three parts of the soul has its own pleasures, desires, and motivations.

Aristotle defines the same moral dissonance as a person who, "knowing that what he does is bad, does it as a result of passion” (NE 7. 1. 1145b12). His analogy is a person whose paralyzed limb goes right instead of left as the person intended, or like a city which enacts good laws and then disregards them (NE 1. 13. 1102b15-21. and NE 7. 10. 1152a19-24).

In order to deal with the human moral dilemma Aristotle proposed the famous analogy that becoming good is just as much a craft as developing a skill -- virtuous dispositions and a skillful craftsman both require persistent practice. The specific means for the development of one’s virtuous disposition, of course, are the moral virtues (i.e. temperance, fortitude, justice, etc.). However, from a Christian perspective this strategy, while commendable, is very deficient.

The Christian virtue ethic differs from Aristotle’s ethics in two very significant ways. First, Christians take seriously the dark spiritual dimension of our moral conflict. In other words, our moral conflict is not merely a struggle against flesh and blood, but also against spiritual forces. Our moral choices are not made in a vacuum, but in the shadow of the influence of a personal evil being named Satan. If we are to overcome our moral weakness it requires spiritual resources that go beyond our own (Eph. 6:10-18). To put it simply, the Christian virtue ethic is by nature God-centered and Christ-centered embracing both divine forgiveness and empowerment.

A second way that the Christian virtue ethic differs from Aristotle’s is that we strongly affirm our need for God’s grace in order to grow in virtue and improve in godly character. In Galatians 5, Paul makes a stark contrast between the works of the flesh and of the Spirit. Unaided human effort ends in frustration and evil. The fruit of the Spirit are produced by God but the works of the flesh are produced by human effort. Ultimately, Christian character is the product of God’s Spirit taking up residence in our lives. On the other had, Christians are not let off the hook. There are plenty of Scriptural admonitions that the believer is to “put on” godly virtues and behavior (Col. 3). We are to work in conjunction with God’s grace to produce godly character and action.

The bottom line is that the moral weakness that Paul identifies in Romans 7 and that Aristotle and Plato wrote about can be overcome only through human cooperation with the grace of God to produce godly habits and character.

The Worst thing to Do

Perhaps the worst state that one can get themselves into is described by the great prophet Isaiah.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

How does one get to the point that he or she actually begins to see that which is morally good as an evil? Well, the old school way of talking about this is to use the terms “habits of vice.” The simplest way to understand a habit is that God has designed us in such a way that each time we repeat an action it becomes easier. All of us have had the experience of doing something which at first was very difficult but with repetition the action became easy — it became habituated. A habit, when formed, stands between the power to do something and the actual action of doing it. The point is, we can develop good habits which are called virtues and we can develop bad habits which are called vices. The greatest harm done by habits of vice is that they blind our thinking against even knowing good and evil. This, by the way, is what is so scary about our generation which is so blithely self-confident about justifying “unnatural vice.” A whole generation can come to start to see good as evil and evil as good. Again, the old school terminology for this generational process is that by “vicious customs” and “corrupt habits” unnatural vices (Rom 1) are “not esteemed sinful” by a society.

The Best Thing to Do

Hosea 9:10 says of ancient sinful Israel, “(they) became as vile as the thing they loved.” Behind this statement is a universal principle, we become like what we love. Therefore, we are improved and made better as people by loving things that are healthy for us, particularly by the love of the best thing which is God. Conversely, we are wounded and worsened by the love of sin.

Beyond the love of God, which is the highest and best thing we can do for ourselves, we can also improve our lives by developing habits of virtue which are the opposite of habits of vice. Chief among the virtues, of course, is love. Love as described in the Bible is self-giving without expecting a return. The point is, when we love in this way, it improves us by training our wills and our minds. Just as habits of vice have the powerful affect of blinding us to what is good and true; habits of virtue improve our understanding of the good and strengthen our ability to do greater acts of love. By doing acts of love we actually habituate ourselves to further acts of love and goodness. The difficult becomes easy through habits.

While a society is worsened and coarsened by allowing the growth of “vicious customs” and “corrupt habits” (particularly amongst its young), that same society can be improved by reinforcing habits of virtue within its population. Just as one society can become morally blind, another society can become more attuned to good and evil. It can become a better society—not perfect, but better nonetheless.