Freewill vs. Predestination: Case Closed?

Okay . . . so that was a pretty nervy title, right? Well, I'm writing this book, see, and it's about clay. Well, some of it is about clay, at least. Anyway, I looked up all the verses about our being clay in God's hands and how the clay can't possibly say, "Stop forming me!" I also did some research into pottery and pot making in general.

As I watched various pottery experts at the wheel in various YouTube videos, I was struck by two things: (1) the immense skill involved in just stabilizing the clay--let alone turning it into something beautiful and (2) the direction the clay WANTS to go.

One lady mentioned this as she was throwing the clay. She said, "Remember, every piece of clay wants to become a bowl once it's on the wheel. If you want it to be a cylinder, you are really going to have to fight against its desire." The centrifugal force of the wheel is to blame for this. On the other hand, if you want to make a plate, you really have to focus on guiding the center of the clay out to the outer rim without it all peeling up in your hands. Once you successfully guide it out to the outer rim, you have to REALLY focus on pulling the sides up and supporting them as you pull out without the whole thing flopping over onto the wheel because of gravity. Besides all that, you have to keep the clay moist, keep it centered, keep it pliable, keep it free from bubbles and impurities--at all times. So many things to think about. So many things that could go wrong if one of them is off. Yet, if everything is in sync, you get a beautiful piece of pottery at the end.

Most of this I knew or could have guessed, but I guess what hit me was this: True, the clay keeps pushing out and against the potter; however, that's not always a bad thing. If the clay didn't push at all, nothing would ever happen.

It just hit me after watching these few videos and thinking about freewill and predestination and the fact that we are compared to clay so often in the Bible. Could this be the answer to the whole thing? It just seems to me that this picture answers a lot of questions. Of course the Potter is in supreme control, yet . . . we can either be workable or unworkable. It's up to us.

Besides that . . . clay doesn't actually have a freewill. But if something so inanimate can mimic a freewill in such a clear way just by scientifically mathematical forces, then . . . our real freewill must at least be as significant in the grand scheme of things or else no one would have suggested this analogy.

The Danger of Extreme Calvinism

I know that my actions have consequences, . . . however, why do I so often seemed doomed to fail? How can God love me when I am just a pawn?

We can debate and convince and debate and convince. But when all is said and done . . . those nagging questions come right back. Why? Because our convincing is based on emotional surface logic rather than well-thought out truth.

Freewill. The first wrong argument downplays predestination by saying that God simply just knows the future and what we are going to do before we do it. Predestination is simply reduced to a prior knowledge, and that basically the real power lies within us. While this really makes us aware of our responsibility as people, it is heresy. We are told time and again of God's absolute power and complete authority over His creation. We can't just forget that for the sake of not making Him seem as terrible as He really is--even in the New Testament, God is still pretty terrifying. Revelation, anyone?

Predestination. The other side completely downplays our choice in the matter at all. They claim that God does it all and we have no real say. This makes logical sense. If a mouse were in a battle against a lion . . . there would be no battle to speak of. However . . . that's not the concept here. The only way we could make this analogy work is if the lion had created the mouse and allowed the mouse to have a freewill. This is the point I think pastors with this thinking skim over: It's not a matter of might. It's a matter of truth--God has told us that we have a choice. You'd think a good pastor would know that.

In truth, downplaying either side for the sake of the other is just plain wrong. Both sides cannot be denied. Even if it "makes good sense" to downplay freewill, it's wrong. We have responsibility for our actions, but God is in control of everything. However, it's not a matter of who does MORE work in my life--the Spirit or me?--as though you can break it down into percentages. As though God keeps a scoreboard. No. There is no scoreboard, b/c we would be nowhere on that board. If God were self-serving and a score-keeper, would He give His own Life for us? I suppose the sadists would say "Well, of course He would, and that's exactly why He did!" But think about that for a second. When you give something--expecting something in return--do you give EVERYTHING you have? No. We all withhold something. God didn't.

Becoming totally Calvinist (no freewill), I believe, is wrong-thinking b/c it scares people the wrong way. The only thing we are to fear is God--period. Nothing else. We are not supposed to fear whether or not we are the chosen. That is misplaced fear. Many times churches will use this misplaced fear to control their congregations. It's little wonder the world sees the church as it does--a closed-minded guilt forum. To sit and wonder, fret, and worry if we are chosen or not is not an issue. It's a fairy tale. It's like wondering what would have happened if we'd married our boyfriend in sixth grade. Who cares. It's fantasy. It's not real. It may be a provoking thought for five minutes, but it's not truth. If we understand God's salvation and we trust Him, then there is no more debate. We are chosen. End of story.

There is a fear that arises sometimes when we read passages about God dying for "the elect." I used to worry about this as a child. It used to keep me up all hours of the night. As though God only shed enough blood for those precious few, and none of the others. What if I wasn't elected? There are many things wrong with this thinking, and I will only cover a few. First of all, while there are many passages that say that God redeemed the chosen ones, there are just as many saying that God died for the entire world. God didn't just die for a percentage. That's human logic. If someone paid the bail for everyone in prison and you stayed, who would actually be redeemed? Well...the ones who took up the offer, of course! You wouldn't! You'd still be in jail--even though your crimes were paid in full. Redemption is a two-person transaction.

Secondly, if God has such a hand in His creation to reach down and save some and not others, isn't that diabolically sadistic of Him? Well, Paul talks about this in Romans when he talks about God loving Jacob and hating Esau. God can choose whomever He wants. The fact that God chooses some, when all deserve hell . . . well, . . . you get the idea.

But we still come back to this problem of how God could choose some and not others. Personally, I see that as a lie. I see it as a diversion from the real stakes. Let's use the jail analogy again. Do you remember word problems? Well, figure this one out: If you'd committed a crime and were thrown into prison along with 40 other people, and someone came and paid the bail for all of you, but only 3 people left the jail b/c the "payer" came and bodily grabbed them out of the cell and threw them into a limo that would take them to a new house, but everyone else stayed--even though to stay would mean the electric chair, . . . could you really use the excuse, "well, why should I leave when there are 37 other people getting the electric chair? Why didn't the bail payer come and grab all of us?"

Now let's talk about the convincing argument. As Christians, I think many times we go down the Hallmark Family Movie aisle b/c those are the only "kid-tested/mother-approved" things to watch and then we apply that touchy-feeliness into our apologetics. For some reason, that kind of argument works for a lot of people and they never question the logic, b/c they feel their faith is all they need. This is to their credit. However . . . not all the world thinks like that--especially not those who fancy themselves to be "intelligent."

Fortunately, God covers His bases . . . unfortunately, it's hard to see those bases when so many people blindly follow and cannot give an argument any more convincing than, "Well, Jesus said it! So that settles it!" This may be true . . . but Jesus never answered anyone like that. Who do we think we are when we say it?

Now, you may be able to convince and explain predestination/freewill away in your own mind without coming to grips with post-modern humanistic thinking, but let me tell you something. The graduate student down the street studying Nietzsche doesn't agree. And let me tell you something else. God loves that graduate student and wants you to be able to talk to him. If your logic has one little hole in it, some may let themselves buy it, but many will not listen.

Sooner or later, people figure things out. For instance, if you tell someone, "you have the power inside you to overcome anything!" that may empower them for the time being--and it's a nice Disney thing to say; however, once they start to see how limited their "power" actually is, they will see the flaw in the logic and may not trust your advice again. I believe this is the greatest cause of clinical depression--nothing works, nowhere to turn, and I've tried everything.

Unfortunately, people will use this same "empowering" logic and call it God--which is how Christians get depressed. When they don't feel empowered by God, they turn against Him b/c "He didn't work." But . . . He does work. Perhaps the problem is not that God doesn't work, but rather that people don't actually need empowering. Maybe people just need to trust God whether or not they have some kind of "successful" or "happy" life. God never commands us to be successful; He commands us to trust Him. God never commands us to be happy; He commands us to be content.

Instead of feeling the "i can do anything!" mentality, which will eventually fail, maybe we should think, "Jesus died for my sins, so anything good I get from this life is bonus!"

If you really sit and think about it . . . you come to the realization that trusting God and being content is actually much more freeing than being successful and happy.

The reason is because of limits. Success is not something that can be measured. The most "successful" person may feel successful for 99% of the time, but . . . that nagging one percent . . . that nagging one percent. It doesn't go away, b/c success is something we continually desire in greater and greater amounts. If we are honest with ourselves, we would admit that we really only feel successful when we compare ourselves to those we don't find as successful. And there is another word for that: pathetic.

The same goes for happiness. Think of the last thing that made you happy. Now picture doing that all the time. At first, that notion may seem like heaven on earth . . . however, human nature gets bored with anything. I think of that "De Motivational Poster" with the guy sitting next to a beautiful girl and looking really bored. The caption says something like, "next to every beautiful girl sits a bored average-looking guy who would have killed just to be near her three months ago."

Really, success and happiness are wolves in sheep's clothing. They are chains. They just cause more and more problems. However, if we trust God and are content, we can be truly free. If we trust God and are content even when it seems He's destined us to fail and have hard times, nothing can touch us. I'm not talking about a "good ship Lollipop" mentality. That is just faking happiness. I'm talking about true trust and contentment. The kind of contentment that caused Horatio Spafford to pen the words to "It is Well with My Soul" in the wake of losing not only his finances but nearly everyone dear to him. The kind of trust that gave the blind hymn writer, Fanny Crosby, the faith that she would one day see her Savior's face. Compare these with celebrities today and then tell me who has contentment and who is just faking happiness. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the truth.

Perhaps, just like we don't need empowering, we also don't need to know everything. You know what? It's probably not even that we don't need to so much we just can't. We can't know everything, b/c we live within time. We can only know the past and the present. Anything about the future we know b/c God loves us enough to tell us. If we knew all the future, we'd go insane. We don't like being left in the dark and we like to think that God is a big mean ogre for doing that to us . . . but look what we do with money. Look what we do with our children. Look what we do with power. Do we really think we can be trusted with knowledge of everything? Doesn't it make more sense to trust in a Perfect Being who has everything laid out and planned and allows us to make free choices within His plan?

This is why we need to be serious when talking about predestination and freewill. People can see through the argument when you side with one or the other. People can see that there are consequences to their actions, so predestination sounds like a lie. People also can see that sometimes, circumstances are beyond their control, so predestination seems like an inescapable frustration. Above all, people are choosing to die and we feel we can simply WATCH them b/c of "predestination"??? We cannot simply say one or the other. They BOTH need consideration. Don't bring holy things down to our level and then sugar-coat them, b/c that has proven to be wrong thinking. Predestination and freewill are both present. They are both true. Stop fitting God into a little box of patriotism so you and your golfing buddies can have something to make you proud of discussing. God isn't the Olympics.

Free Will Is Not 50/50

This morning Acts 9 stood out to me--Paul's conversion. I began to think about how this conversion really throws a wrench into the sadistic view of free will.

God gives us free will to choose Him. As good little Christians we've heard it time and again...We've heard it so often that it becomes cliche. God gave us choices so that we could make the right ones. God desires our love, and He can't get that from a bunch of robots. Yes, we understand. It makes sense...but on the other hand...

What about that weird gut-wrenching feeling that free will is just one big sick joke? That God gives us choices--desiring us to choose Him--knowing full well that we are going to do what we want instead. Why would a loving God allow people NOT to choose Him? If those who don't choose Him go to hell, then how can God even remotely call Himself loving? Free will is a sick joke, so...we might as well decide to believe that there is no God since we've sufficiently explained Him away enough to feel proud of ourselves...

This reminds me of something my students say every time they have a question on a test with only one of two possible answers--such as true/false or "A or B" questions. They say, "Miss Stephens! There is only a 50/50 chance we will get these right!" They say that the odds of choosing the right answer as opposed to the wrong answer are exactly divided down the middle. I used to say the same thing when I was a student. However, this point is completely ridiculous.

The chances are not 50/50. The chances are EXACTLY 100%! Why?...Because ONLY ONE ANSWER IS RIGHT! The problem in not getting the right answer is insufficiently studying or incorrectly reading the question.

Now let me apply that reasoning to free will. Every person on the planet is given a brain. No person on the planet had anything to do with deciding to be here. We choose to get wrapped up in other things like fame, money, sex, etc...BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO--especially since we never feel totally fulfilled with these things. We always want more money. There are always people with more friends and more notoriety than us. People have sex so much that they no longer find pleasure in it once they are married. The list goes on...

This point ALONE makes God a shoo-in for our 100% devotion; however, the fact that there are even more powers at work in the universe to help us make the right choices infinitely increases the odds in our favor. Look at Paul! His desire was to kill every Christian he saw! That didn't matter to God! God supernaturally intervened. He may not strike us with physical blindness, but He does deal with us individually. We would have to purposely REJECT God in order not to choose Him...and...That's what we do...because we would rather revel in the faulty logic of teenage test-takers than in reality.

Even the "tribes in Africa" conundrum fits this point. There are countless stories of tribes in remote places finally "waking up" and realizing that their methods of nature-worship or human sacrifice are empty, meaningless, and immoral. They call out to the true God to reveal Himself...and so He sends a missionary to them. It happens all the time. Testimonials all around the globe.

But I'm sure you want a little more proof than just hearsay...so...I encourage you look around yourself. Christianity is everywhere in some form. The Bible is the most accessible book of all time. This is because people in remote areas called out to God and God heard them and revealed Himself to them through His Word. I'm in Korea right now. South Korea is second only to the U.S. for Christian mission work. Less than a century ago it was almost 100% Buddhist.

Christianity has spread so much worldwide that there are hardly any people left who don't know of it. This global Christian influence is precisely what the Bible said would happen. God will not return until all people have heard His name. Until that time, His Word will spread, and all men will either accept or reject.

Choosing God as a part of free will seems completely impossible for humans. That's because it is. If it were up to us, no one would figure out this "God thing" and we'd all be atheistic nihilists...except we wouldn't even be here in the first place, b/c there would be no point to being here and we would have died out before we even began. However...put God in the picture and you find that He's been there all the time and waiting for you to desire Him.

The Bible: Chauvinist Propaganda? Pt. 2

2. Adam and Eve were created in order of importance.

Well...It makes sense, doesn't it? For instance, the firstborn position has long been the most important position in the family system after the father dies. The term "first" always implies a sense of "primary" or "main." It is the pattern for all the rest. We compete for "first place." "Second" or "third" might as well be last.

So man was created first. Does that mean that woman was merely an afterthought--a necessity for little more than procreation? We can cross reference this chauvinist point (as so many have done) with I Timothy 2:12-13 where Paul says that women are not to have authority over a man for this very reason. Is that what this means? I thought that women could not be secondary and equal at the same time.

First questions first. Why was there an order? If God is so all-powerful, why weren't they just created at the same time? That would solve the equality problem right there! This is the same question we find when we deal with the six days of creation. Why six days? Why not everything in an instant? Sometimes, God does things outside the box of human obviousness, so...instead of trying to reason it out, we just shut our minds off and stick them in the "Because He's God" file. However,...if we are going to tell existentialists that it is ridiculous to answer ultimate questions with: "the point is: no point," we must also do our part to figure out where we stand on any given point. Yes, the answer may be just as simple as the word "God"; however, we need to say WHY we came to that conclusion (I Pet. 3:15). Don't use circular reasoning or anger. Those are what the world uses. God has given us the gift of truth. Let's let the truth speak for itself.

So...the problem remains that God sometimes likes to do things in a humanly illogical fashion and that bothers some of us. It's like God "acts out" on purpose just to frustrate us! Like...'Okay, I'm not supposed to believe evolution, right? b/c an all-powerful God didn't need the confines of a belabored, time-consuming billions of years to create something that He could have taken an instant to do. Yeah...? So...why did He bother to take six days, then?' Well as other references will tell us, the six days were a pattern for mankind's work week. We were created within the confines of 3 spacial dimensions and one time dimension. In this time dimension we are given six days to do all our "stuff" (work, play, etc.) and then the seventh day we are to rest from our human activity and focus on God.

You see, it is my experience that whenever God "acts out" He is actually doing so in order to teach. Think of Genesis 6 which says that God was "sorry" or "repented" that He had created man. Does God actually regret anything that He does? Does God do something He needs to feel sorry for? No. This passage is merely relaying to us an emotion that we can understand. If we'd created people who turned against us, we'd be upset too. We understand betrayal. We need to understand the depths to which people betray God, so we can see our desperate need for Him. That can only be relayed to us is through human terms. But why use the word "repent?" Well, partly because the people were so utterly non-repentant and sinful, that God's sorrow was the ultimate contrast. However, it is important to remember that our personal experience with this emotion is a result of our own sin. God doesn't sin, so...His repentance has nothing to do with His sin and everything to do with our sin.

So what is God trying to teach us through creation order? Well, for that answer, we need to look directly at the creation account.

Genesis 1 - 2:3 gives us the overview of all creation and sets down the six days of labor/play and the one day of rest which the majority of the world still follows. However, Verse 4 and following of Genesis 2 is a special, specific account of God's most important creation: mankind. Let's go through this chapter.

Verse 7 explains how man was formed--from the dust and then life was God-breathed into him. In verse 8, man is placed in the Garden of Eden. In verse 15, man is supposed to tend and care for the garden. In verses 16 and 17 man is given a warning that he may eat of any and every tree in the garden EXCEPT one. Not only is he given this command, but also there is a death consequence attached. (Notice: There was only ONE sin in the Garden of Eden. Freewill hung in the balance of ONE tiny act. You see, God's desire is not to have all these stipulations and rules. God desire is for us to be naked in a garden of pleasure! We are the ones who chose otherwise! Few people realize that, I think. One side thinks God doesn't want us to have fun. The flip side gasps at the very word "naked.")

Now we come to verse 18 where God announces that it is not good for man to be alone, and that He will create a helper for him. Based on what was just discussed, did God actually regret not creating woman at the same time and then seek to remedy the situation? No. God does not sin or make mistakes, remember? So when He regrets, it's an emotion we can understand; however, it has no basis in sin. Rather, He was establishing something important. Let's read on in order to get a fuller picture of what was happening. In verse 19, God brings all the animals to Adam so Adam can name them, and possibly find a companion among them. By verse 20, Adam has named them all but hasn't found any animals that will be suitable as a mate.

Now, this seems strange to me because wouldn't God KNOW that animals weren't going to work as Adam's mate? It almost seems like God just really wanted the animals named and so He used a subversive method to get Adam to do it. Deceit is against God's nature, and there is a better answer anyway. First of all, notice the active statement God says at the end of verse 18 after He's pointed out that it isn't good for Adam to be alone. He says, "I will make a companion who will help him (NLT)." That is rather interesting language. He doesn't say, "I will FIND a companion from what I've already made." He knows he is going to make woman, but...he doesn't want to force the idea on Adam. Rather, he wants Adam to come to this conclusion. That's the fun of freewill, I think.

(Side note: So...why did Adam have to name the animals? Well, consider this: Genesis 1:26 is pretty clear that humans were to be the masters of the earth. God could have named them all, but he wanted naming to be one of Adam's first acts as Master of the Earth. This was also to show Adam's intellect and superiority over creation. We find later in the Bible that the act of naming is an important occurrence. It shows importance, remembrance, belonging, responsibility, understanding, familial seniority, personality, familiarity, etc. Animals do not name things, even though they can understand their own name. Think of when a king or queen bestows a title or a knighthood upon someone. The person being knighted may deserve the position, but they will never receive it without the authority of the king or queen.)

So why did God pretend that Adam was going to find a helper among the animals? Think of how Adam must have felt to see all these animals with male and female companions, and yet...here he is on the planet...all by himself. That's kind of a sick game of God to play on Adam, isn't it?

This might make more sense if you think of being a kid on your birthday. You know it's coming, you hope you are going to get lots and lots of presents. You wait and wait and wait for the day to come. You invite all your friends, b/c friends bring presents. You talk about it and make sure no one forgets about it. Then finally, the day comes and you wake up expecting to be showered with gifts the moment you wake up. But you aren't. You go downstairs for breakfast, expecting presents to be on the table. They aren't. You go to school and no one gives you presents. No one even talks about your birthday. After school, your mom picks you up to take you home and no presents. Just as you are about to give up hope of ever getting presents ever again, you walk through the door and "Surprise!" All your friends are there and there is a table full of presents.

Now that is a silly analogy and I'm sure none of us were that self-absorbed as children, right? Anyway, this is my point: If you had gotten the presents when you were first expecting them, would you have appreciated them more or less than when you had to wait for them? It is a fact of human nature that the longer we are deprived of something, the more we desire and the more likely we are to appreciate the fulfillment of said desire. People who get whatever they want whenever they want are called "spoiled." They have no appreciation for what they receive.

So Adam learns patience and appreciation. God could have said, "Adam. You need a woman. Here she is." But He didn't. Instead, he allowed Adam to recognize his need and yearn for it.

In verse 21 God performs the first surgery and removes one of Adam's ribs. Notice that Adam is asleep during this procedure. He wasn't awake to give God input or somehow help in this creative process. Woman was made from the elements of Adam by the same Creator that made him. God knew what Adam needed and He created her by Himself.

So then in verse 22 God makes Eve and brings her to Adam. Then in verse 23 Adam says, "Yay! A slave! An inferior!" Ha! No. Rather he is overjoyed and grateful. He uses the words "At last!" or "Finally!" which shows that he had to be patient. Then, he says something interesting, "She is part of my own flesh and bone!"

Ah-Ha! Now we see why Adam was first and woman was second! God needed to show us just what a special act of creation humans are. We are not entirely separate acts of creation. We are physically and symbolically part of each other. We are one flesh. This didn't happen with the animals. The male and female parts of the animals were separate acts of creation. We are the only part of creation set apart to display a picture between God and man.

(I suppose you could well argue that while Eve was part of Adam, Adam was not part of Eve. This is true; however, Adam is the only man who can make that claim. The rest of us are made from a male sperm and a female egg (this is explained in I Cor. 11:11-12). Even though Adam could have used this as fuel for lording over Eve, he didn't. He was appreciate of her and saw her as the perfect fulfillment of his longing. Still, the act of creating Eve from Adam lays the groundwork for our being God's "special creation.")

Verse 24 adds a new point to this discussion. A man is to leave the comfort and nurturing of his parents and find ultimate human comfort and nurture from his wife. Notice that the picture of Christ and the church is not between parents and their children, but between a husband and wife.

Notice something else interesting. Apart from the sex, companionship, and help, woman fulfills another need. A woman is capable of giving birth to MORE people. A man has a father and mother to leave b/c there were women who gave birth to them. Do you have only one friend or relative? No! You have many. Many people get this yin/yang concept about men and women, and it's just not that simplistic. Without women there would be no fellowship--no families, no friends, no acquaintances. I am not saying (like the feminists do) that men have nothing to do with childbirth--obviously women can't do it on their own, but...if God had formed another man, (leaving the homosexual debate for another time) the world would still only have had two people living on it. Another man would not fulfill the need for Adam's fellowship (plural)--only a meager companionship (singular).

God breathed part of Himself into mankind. Part of man was used to make woman. There is a beautiful picture there. However, let's not get sentimental. Let's think practically: If man and woman had been separate acts of creation we would have more of a sense of equality, right? Perhaps, but think of how love would suffer. The very foundation of unconditional love--God loving us as His bride and giving Himself for us--would be completely lost on us. Nothing in the story of the Cross would compel us. That otherworldly sense of longing for and completion in a human relationship would not exist. That supernatural sense of filling the "God-shaped Hole" would not exist b/c without a human idea of love, we'd never fathom a spiritual one! Love wouldn't make sense. We would just procreate like animals. Our version of love at best would be the loyalty and "pack mentality" of animals. That's as far as love would go. Love is far more important than being exactly the same. This is something evolution cannot explain. Love is the tie that binds the universe, and we as humans have been given the equal opportunity to share in the very picture and purpose of love.

That is the reason there was an order to the creation of Adam and Eve.

Next blog: 3. But...women were the FIRST sinners!