Below are answers from the November 2008 Republican Presidential debate where the candidates answered this question: "I am Joseph. I am from Dallas, Texas, and how you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book [the Bible]? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?"
To read the responses yourself go to: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/28/debate.transcript/ and http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/28/debate.transcript.part2/index.html.
Mayor Giuliani?
Huckabee: Do I need to help you out, Mayor, on this one?
(Laughter)
(Applause)
Giuliani: Wait a second, you're the minister. You're going to help me out on this one.
Huckabee: I'm trying to help you out.
Giuliani: OK. The reality is, I believe it, but I don't believe it's necessarily literally true in every single respect.
Giuliani: I think there are parts of the Bible that are interpretive. I think there are parts of the Bible that are allegorical. I think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be interpreted in a modern context. So, yes, I believe it. I think it's the great book ever written. I read it frequently. I read it very frequently when I've gone through the bigger crises in my life, and I find great wisdom in it, and it does define to a very large extent my faith. But I don't believe every single thing in the literal sense of Jonah being in the belly of the whale, or, you know, there are some things in it that I think were put there as allegorical.
Cooper: Governor Romney?
Romney: I believe the Bible is the word of God, absolutely. And I try...
(Applause)
... I try to live by it as well as I can, but I miss in a lot of ways. But it's a guide for my life and for hundreds of millions, billions of people around the world. I believe in the Bible.
Cooper: Does that mean you believe every word?
Romney: You know -- yes, I believe it's the word of God, the Bible is the word of God. The Bible is the word of God. I mean, I might interpret the word differently than you interpret the word, but I read the Bible and I believe the Bible is the word of God. I don't disagree with the Bible. I try to live by it.
Cooper: Governor Huckabee?
Huckabee: Sure. I believe the Bible is exactly what it is. It's the word of revelation to us from God himself.
(Applause)
And the fact is that when people ask do we believe all of it, you either believe it or you don't believe it. But in the greater sense, I think what the question tried to make us feel like was that, well, if you believe the part that says "Go and pluck out your eye," well, none of us believe that we ought to go pluck out our eye. That obviously is allegorical. But the Bible has some messages that nobody really can confuse and really not left up to interpretation. "Love your neighbor as yourself." And as much as you've done it to the least of these brethren, you've done it unto me. Until we get those simple, real easy things right, I'm not sure we ought to spend a whole lot of time fighting over the other parts that are a little bit complicated. And as the only person here on the stage with a theology degree, there are parts of it I don't fully comprehend and understand, because the Bible is a revelation of an infinite god, and no finite person is ever going to fully understand it. If they do, their god is too small.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
Hooray for Ben Stein
The following was sent to me by a friend. It's a commentary Ben Stein read on CBS Sunday Morning.
I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.
It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.
I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.
In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"
In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."
Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Are you laughing?
Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.
Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in. My Best Regards.
Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein
I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.
It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.
I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.
In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"
In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."
Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Are you laughing?
Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.
Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in. My Best Regards.
Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Paley still reigns supreme
Lately, I've been getting into some pretty intense debates with some evolutionists over intelligent design and evolution. My main argument to them is rarely, if ever, answered. I always ask them to forget evolution for a second and simply asking Jean-Paul Sartre's question, which is "Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?" Since something can never come from nothing, you have to hold to an eternal 'something', and the only two choices are an eternal universe and an eternal creator. And since science has disproved an eternal universe, you're left with only one alternative.
In any event, why should intelligent design be considered and why should it be taught in schools?
Here are the first things to remember. Those devoted to science pride themselves in saying the science is supposed to go wherever the evidence leads. And those devoted to education say that education is dedicated to the free exchange of ideas. If those two positions are true, then here’s why intelligent design should be taught in public schools.
Evolution vs. intelligent design is not about science vs. religion, it’s about bad science vs. good science. The facts are that Intelligent Design most certainly is science – in fact it is good science based on evidence that is both scientifically verifiable and intellectually reasonable. Darwinian macroevolution, on the other hand, is increasingly being found to be bad science that does indeed conflict with the concept of a Creator because its roots and honest proponents clearly show it to be atheistic in nature and completely committed to materialism. So make no mistake – there is a philosophy and, dare I say it, religion behind evolution.
This being the case, let’s first start with a logical argument for intelligent design as logic contains what are called ‘first principles’ for science (in other words, scientists need to think logically):
Next, is there scientific evidence that is devoid of religious contamination that points to a Designer of all that we know? There certainly is, with the three strongest arguments for design being: (1) Anticipatory Design (2) Irreducible Complexity (3) Specified Complexity.
Regarding anticipatory design, you have what is called the anthropic (a name in Greek meaning “human” or “man”) principle says that the universe was tailor made from the very first moment of its existence for the emergence of life in general and human life in particular. In brief, it means Someone anticipated that man would be here and specifically designed a world that would support him. Scientists have discovered breathtaking precision in the design of the universe that leaves little doubt that a supernatural intelligence was behind it all. Some of the scientific constants and accuracy that have been uncovered include:
In fact, the probability of such connected precision occurring by mere chance exceeds any measure of scientific probability. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated that the odds of all anthropic constants (122 at last count) to be in place for any planet in the universe by luck alone to be one chance in ten with 138 zeros after it. This number becomes even more incredible when one realizes there are only 1070 atoms in the entire universe. Finally, mathematicians point out that anything which exceeds 1050 power is the exact same thing as zero chance.
Irreducible complexity may be the single greatest piece of evidence against evolution and for intelligent design. Charles Darwin admitted that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Scientists now know that many such entities exist. In Darwin’s time, scientists could not see into what scientists call “Darwin’s black box”, which is the cell. Darwin thought the cell to be a simple structure, however time and scientific advances have proven him wrong. Instead, there is advanced complexity all the way down.
The cell is now known to be a structure run by micromachines of the right shape, strength, and proper interactions. This type of system has been termed ‘irreducibly complex’ because it is made up of a number of different components that all work together to accomplish the task of the system, and should one of the components be removed, the system would no longer function. In other words, the cell and other irreducibly complex structures (e.g. cilia, bacterial flagellum) could not have evolved as they could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. Therefore, Darwin’s theory breaks down. Evolutionist and biochemist Frank Harold admits, “. . . we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
In addition to being incredibly and irreducibly complex, scientists have discovered that entities like cells contain vast amounts of specified information – our last line of evidence for intelligent design called specified complexity. In fact, Darwinist Richard Dawkins admits that the message found in just the cell nucleus of an amoeba is more than all thirty volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica, with the entire amoeba itself having as much information in its DNA as 1,000 complete sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica. The important thing to understand is that the makeup of these entities is not random, but instead the information is highly organized just as what someone would find in an intelligently written encyclopedia. Given that the natural order of the world is for things to move from order to disorder rather than vice versa, opponents of the teleological argument must explain how such specified complexity came about.
Commenting on biological matter arriving by natural means, Stephen Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. in life biology from Cambridge, says that whenever one finds a sequential arrangement that is complex and corresponds to an independent pattern or function, it is always the product of intelligence. He goes on to say, “Books, computer codes, and DNA all have these two properties. We know books and computer codes are designed by intelligence, and the presence of this type of information in DNA also implies an intelligent source.”
The specified complexity of life, the irreducible complexity of cells and other such entities that break Darwin’s theory completely down, and the amazing anthropic constants that gift man with life on this planet are strong evidence that could alone support the credibility of the teleological argument. But let’s look at additional support that can be added to the logical arguments we started with.
As astronomical as the odds and probabilities are for all anthropic constants being in place to support life on earth, some scientists and atheists argue that it doesn’t matter what the odds are, because we are here. And because we are here, the matter is settled. But such thinking eliminates God from the equation at the very outset and betrays a desperation to not only ignore the scientific facts, but reason itself.
William Paley is credited with giving the teleological argument its logical foundation. Paley argued that if you were walking in the woods and came upon a watch, you would not reach the conclusion that nature itself fashioned the timepiece through time and chance, but you would instead realize that someone designed and built the watch with a purpose in mind. Basically, Paley was saying that behind every thing that displays intelligence is a thought, and behind that thought is a thinker. No reasonable person would conclude that the watch was fashioned in any other way. Here’s another illustration to prove the same point:
Imagine you and I went out to a parking lot and were looking at cars. I say to you, “You know there are folks who believe these cars were designed and built, but I know differently. Let me tell you how they really got here. Long, long ago, iron and glass and rubber and fabric and plastic and wire and leather came up out of the ground. All these components fashioned themselves into just the right shapes in all the proper places. Amazingly, holes evolved in just the right places and then bolts somehow became threaded, and then there were nuts that matched the bolts and somehow everything screwed itself into place very tightly. And amazingly, the upholstery wove itself into place and over time, seats appeared in the front where they needed to be. You see these tires? Over many centuries they became round and they found themselves the right size metal wheels, filled themselves with air, attached themselves to the car, and they began to roll. After many more years, these things began to multiply and when people finally found one of these things under a tree, someone looked at it, and said ‘Let’s call it an automobile.’
Were a religious person to state such an argument, they would be ridiculed and called a fool by the mainstream media, yet this is exactly what scientists say happened to form the universe that man lives in. Not only is it supremely improbable that the fine-tuning of the universe occurred at random, it is perfectly reasonable and logical to conclude that such precision could be the work of a cosmic Designer. Man uses such logic everyday to reach well thought out conclusions. For example, in a trial, no lucid defense attorney would argue that a defendant’s fingerprints on a gun were the result of a random formation of chemicals and time. They know full well that a jury would instead reasonably conclude that the defendant touched the gun. In the same way, the teleological argument logically demonstrates that the Creator left His fingerprints all over His creation.
After all these years, Paley's argument is still is in on top.
In any event, why should intelligent design be considered and why should it be taught in schools?
Here are the first things to remember. Those devoted to science pride themselves in saying the science is supposed to go wherever the evidence leads. And those devoted to education say that education is dedicated to the free exchange of ideas. If those two positions are true, then here’s why intelligent design should be taught in public schools.
Evolution vs. intelligent design is not about science vs. religion, it’s about bad science vs. good science. The facts are that Intelligent Design most certainly is science – in fact it is good science based on evidence that is both scientifically verifiable and intellectually reasonable. Darwinian macroevolution, on the other hand, is increasingly being found to be bad science that does indeed conflict with the concept of a Creator because its roots and honest proponents clearly show it to be atheistic in nature and completely committed to materialism. So make no mistake – there is a philosophy and, dare I say it, religion behind evolution.
This being the case, let’s first start with a logical argument for intelligent design as logic contains what are called ‘first principles’ for science (in other words, scientists need to think logically):
- Behind every complex design is a designer
- The universe has a complex design
- Therefore, the universe has a Designer
Next, is there scientific evidence that is devoid of religious contamination that points to a Designer of all that we know? There certainly is, with the three strongest arguments for design being: (1) Anticipatory Design (2) Irreducible Complexity (3) Specified Complexity.
Regarding anticipatory design, you have what is called the anthropic (a name in Greek meaning “human” or “man”) principle says that the universe was tailor made from the very first moment of its existence for the emergence of life in general and human life in particular. In brief, it means Someone anticipated that man would be here and specifically designed a world that would support him. Scientists have discovered breathtaking precision in the design of the universe that leaves little doubt that a supernatural intelligence was behind it all. Some of the scientific constants and accuracy that have been uncovered include:
- Oxygen currently makes up 21 percent of the atmosphere. Were it 25 percent, fires would erupt everywhere and if it were 15 percent, humans would suffocate.
- If gravity was altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, the sun would not exist and the moon would crash into earth. Further, if the centrifugal force of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun.
- If the universe was expanding at a rate one millionth more slowly than it is, the temperature on earth would be 10,000 degrees.
- If Jupiter was not exactly where it is, earth would be bombarded by space material that would threaten life on the planet.
- If the thickness of the earth’s crust was greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life, and if it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life impossible.
- The axis of the earth is set so carefully that, if it were altered ever so slightly, surface temperatures of the earth would be far too great.
- If water vapor levels in the atmosphere were greater than they are now, a runaway greenhouse effect would cause temperatures to rise far too high on the planet – life would die out. And if they were less, an insufficient greenhouse effect would make the earth too cold to support life.
In fact, the probability of such connected precision occurring by mere chance exceeds any measure of scientific probability. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated that the odds of all anthropic constants (122 at last count) to be in place for any planet in the universe by luck alone to be one chance in ten with 138 zeros after it. This number becomes even more incredible when one realizes there are only 1070 atoms in the entire universe. Finally, mathematicians point out that anything which exceeds 1050 power is the exact same thing as zero chance.
Irreducible complexity may be the single greatest piece of evidence against evolution and for intelligent design. Charles Darwin admitted that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Scientists now know that many such entities exist. In Darwin’s time, scientists could not see into what scientists call “Darwin’s black box”, which is the cell. Darwin thought the cell to be a simple structure, however time and scientific advances have proven him wrong. Instead, there is advanced complexity all the way down.
The cell is now known to be a structure run by micromachines of the right shape, strength, and proper interactions. This type of system has been termed ‘irreducibly complex’ because it is made up of a number of different components that all work together to accomplish the task of the system, and should one of the components be removed, the system would no longer function. In other words, the cell and other irreducibly complex structures (e.g. cilia, bacterial flagellum) could not have evolved as they could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. Therefore, Darwin’s theory breaks down. Evolutionist and biochemist Frank Harold admits, “. . . we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
In addition to being incredibly and irreducibly complex, scientists have discovered that entities like cells contain vast amounts of specified information – our last line of evidence for intelligent design called specified complexity. In fact, Darwinist Richard Dawkins admits that the message found in just the cell nucleus of an amoeba is more than all thirty volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica, with the entire amoeba itself having as much information in its DNA as 1,000 complete sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica. The important thing to understand is that the makeup of these entities is not random, but instead the information is highly organized just as what someone would find in an intelligently written encyclopedia. Given that the natural order of the world is for things to move from order to disorder rather than vice versa, opponents of the teleological argument must explain how such specified complexity came about.
Commenting on biological matter arriving by natural means, Stephen Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. in life biology from Cambridge, says that whenever one finds a sequential arrangement that is complex and corresponds to an independent pattern or function, it is always the product of intelligence. He goes on to say, “Books, computer codes, and DNA all have these two properties. We know books and computer codes are designed by intelligence, and the presence of this type of information in DNA also implies an intelligent source.”
The specified complexity of life, the irreducible complexity of cells and other such entities that break Darwin’s theory completely down, and the amazing anthropic constants that gift man with life on this planet are strong evidence that could alone support the credibility of the teleological argument. But let’s look at additional support that can be added to the logical arguments we started with.
As astronomical as the odds and probabilities are for all anthropic constants being in place to support life on earth, some scientists and atheists argue that it doesn’t matter what the odds are, because we are here. And because we are here, the matter is settled. But such thinking eliminates God from the equation at the very outset and betrays a desperation to not only ignore the scientific facts, but reason itself.
William Paley is credited with giving the teleological argument its logical foundation. Paley argued that if you were walking in the woods and came upon a watch, you would not reach the conclusion that nature itself fashioned the timepiece through time and chance, but you would instead realize that someone designed and built the watch with a purpose in mind. Basically, Paley was saying that behind every thing that displays intelligence is a thought, and behind that thought is a thinker. No reasonable person would conclude that the watch was fashioned in any other way. Here’s another illustration to prove the same point:
Imagine you and I went out to a parking lot and were looking at cars. I say to you, “You know there are folks who believe these cars were designed and built, but I know differently. Let me tell you how they really got here. Long, long ago, iron and glass and rubber and fabric and plastic and wire and leather came up out of the ground. All these components fashioned themselves into just the right shapes in all the proper places. Amazingly, holes evolved in just the right places and then bolts somehow became threaded, and then there were nuts that matched the bolts and somehow everything screwed itself into place very tightly. And amazingly, the upholstery wove itself into place and over time, seats appeared in the front where they needed to be. You see these tires? Over many centuries they became round and they found themselves the right size metal wheels, filled themselves with air, attached themselves to the car, and they began to roll. After many more years, these things began to multiply and when people finally found one of these things under a tree, someone looked at it, and said ‘Let’s call it an automobile.’
Were a religious person to state such an argument, they would be ridiculed and called a fool by the mainstream media, yet this is exactly what scientists say happened to form the universe that man lives in. Not only is it supremely improbable that the fine-tuning of the universe occurred at random, it is perfectly reasonable and logical to conclude that such precision could be the work of a cosmic Designer. Man uses such logic everyday to reach well thought out conclusions. For example, in a trial, no lucid defense attorney would argue that a defendant’s fingerprints on a gun were the result of a random formation of chemicals and time. They know full well that a jury would instead reasonably conclude that the defendant touched the gun. In the same way, the teleological argument logically demonstrates that the Creator left His fingerprints all over His creation.
After all these years, Paley's argument is still is in on top.
Monday, November 05, 2007
God's Sovereignty vs. Man's Free Will Debate
I've been getting quite a few questions on this topic, so I decided to post a response I gave to someone who wrote in on the subject. The person basically asked how can God be in control of our lives and everything else if things that happen in our lives are the result of other's free will decisions. Below is my (somewhat lengthy) response. Hope it helps those of you thinking through this issue.
Your inquiry revives a very long standing debate over how God’s sovereignty can exist alongside man’s free will – something that plenty of great minds have wrestled with over the centuries. It should first be acknowledged that there are a number of mysteries in the scriptures that we can somewhat, but not totally, grasp. Subjects such as the Trinity and the incarnation of Christ fall into this area, as does the sovereignty and free will issue. This is not to say that we can’t understand enough to be satisfied, but only that we may not be able to get a 100% handle on it.
You make some very good observations on the issues. Your remark of Christianity only being tolerable if free will exists is right on the money. How can we love God if He’s the one really causing it? As C. S. Lewis observed, forced love is rape, and that’s not God’s style. Your comments on free will and sin are very insightful too – for example, who caused Satan to sin? God? Certainly not because the Bible specifically says that God does not tempt any to sin (James 1:13). It was a self-determined act from Satan himself. Finally your observations of various logical restrictions God has are valid as well – there are things He cannot do. God cannot lie; he cannot make a round square, etc.
So returning to your questions: how can we answer the dilemma? First, let’s examine the nature of God’s sovereignty, then look at the free will of man, and finally marry the two together and see what the end result is. I’ll use the area of salvation as an example of how God’s sovereignty and man’s free will unite.
Concerning God’s sovereignty, here are some things to think about.
God’s sovereignty means “to be in control of” all things – it can be defined as governance. This can be the case because God is prior to all things, created all things, currently sustains all things, owns all things, and is beyond all things.
God also knows all things – commonly called omniscience. And if God knows all things and how things will turn out in the future, this means that all things are determined – this is a key point to understand. They must happen the way God sees them because He only sees truth. The Psalms say, “Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely” (Psalm 139:4).
Now that said, how is God in control of all things? Psalm 115:3 says, “But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.” So an all-good and powerful God does what is right because it pleases Him. Now this equates to certain events and free will actions being under His control. For example, the book of Daniel is replete with descriptions of God’s hand being on the steering wheel of history – “the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on whom He wishes and sets over it the lowliest of men.” (Daniel 4:17). God also directs the hearts of individual rulers as Proverbs 21:1 says: “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes.”
Not only are human activities under God’s control, but so are the actions in the spiritual realm. For example, God has Satan on a leash – something the devil complained about in Job 1:10: “Have You not made a hedge about him and his house and all that he has, on every side?”
Even human decisions are under God’s sovereignty. Proverbs 16:33 says, “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” As another example, concerning salvation, Jesus said “No one comes to the Father except he is drawn by God” (John 6:44). Paul echoes this in Ephesians 1:11: “we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will”. Not only are the saved predestined, but so are the lost as Peter makes clear in 1 Peter 2:8: “for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.”
Your question dealt specifically with whether God has a purpose and plan for each person’s life. This was certainly the case of Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and Paul as each had predestined missions assigned to them by God (Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:15, Galatians 1:15).
So the bottom line is that Scripture makes it clear that God is in control of all, which is a very reassuring doctrine. An all-good and powerful God is in control and will always do the right thing. Now, what about human responsibility and free will?
Of course, one first needs to understand that we have limits on our freedom. We can’t control our lifespan (outside of normal means) or natural abilities, for example.
Human beings, who are created in the image of a free God, also have been gifted with freedom also. Free choice is just that – something that is not forced. Forced freedom is a contradiction, and just like God can’t make a round square, He can’t create forced freedom.
God told the couple in the Garden: “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely.” In 1 Samuel 15:11, God told Samuel he was grieved because Saul had freely chosen to not follow God’s instructions.
This type of refusal of God’s desire is seen quite a lot in Scripture, and provides evidence of man’s rebellious free will. Stephen told his persecutors that they were “always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did” (Acts 7:51). Peter says that the unsaved are “even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves” (2 Peter 2:1). And of course, there are Jesus’ words about those in Jerusalem: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.” (Matt 23:37). So clearly, these verses show mankind freely acting out in rebellion against God.
Now, how do God’s sovereignty and this free will of man work together? Let’s look at 3 cases – one from the Old Testament and two from the New.
In Genesis 25-27, we are given the story of Jacob and Esau. In Genesis 25:23, God told Isaac and Rebekah that “the older [Esau] shall serve the younger [Jacob].” Now that was God’s will and a prophetic statement He made about the future. The first act of human will that factors into this prediction is Esau’s selling of his birthright to Jacob – something he freely did in chapter 25. But what did father Isaac try and do? In Genesis 27:4 he’s nearing death and tells Esau to get him some food and then he will bless him – in essence make him ruler over his brother – something God said would not happen. Isaac knew this, but ignored God’s directive. But what happens? Esau goes off, but unbeknown to both Isaac and Esau, Rebekah and Jacob trick Isaac – via their free will acts – so that he ends up giving the blessing to Jacob instead. So God’s will was fulfilled, being freely carried out through the free acts of all those involved.
Now let’s switch to the New Testament and look at Judas. Jesus calls Judas in John 17:12 the “son of perdition”, which literally means “destined to perish”. Judas’s destiny was to betray Christ and perish. But were his actions coerced by God? Not at all. He freely chose to betray Christ (Matthew 26:14-16) and yield to the enemy, something Jesus points out when he says in Luke 22:22, “For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”
Finally, there’s a single verse in Acts that shows both God’s sovereignty and man’s free will in action. In Peter’s first sermon, he addresses those in Jerusalem about the death of Christ and says, “this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.” Notice: Christ’s death was a predetermined plan of God – willed by God – but Peter indicts these men has having freely murdered Jesus by nailing Him to the cross.
So these three examples show both sovereignty and free will in action. But what other things should be considered on this front?
One thing to keep in mind about God’s sovereignty/will and man’s free will is that God has made clear his *desire* for all – what we all ought to do, in other words. But His plan for what men *will* do? Well, that He has kept mostly under wraps.
And don’t forget that His plan/will can have several dimensions to it. For example, in the area of salvation, if you are as sinner, separated from God, you are going to die and spend eternity separated from God. That’s true and it is what God has willed for those who reject Him. But, when you freely change your mind and repent, and freely turn to God and ask for salvation, you are no longer a sinner separated from God. Consequently, the consequence that is inescapable for every sinner separated from God no longer applies to you because you have changed, but note that God has not changed. Every sinner separated from God receives the just punishment. Every sinner who has repented receives salvation. When you become a saved sinner, you are no longer a separated sinner. So, now the consequence that applied inevitably to every separated sinner no longer applies to you because you are not a separated sinner. That’s how God’s will combined with your own free will works in the area of salvation.
So in the end, yes, it’s hard to fully comprehend and see how God’s sovereignty and our free will can both co-exist. Usually, Christianity has a very either-or (Aristotelian) logic to it, but in this case it is both-and. Both are real and do not contradict the other.
Perhaps the best way to practically live this out in your life is to follow the advice of Psalms 37:4: “Delight yourself in the Lord; And He will give you the desires of your heart.” When His will and your free will intertwine, there is nothing better.
Your inquiry revives a very long standing debate over how God’s sovereignty can exist alongside man’s free will – something that plenty of great minds have wrestled with over the centuries. It should first be acknowledged that there are a number of mysteries in the scriptures that we can somewhat, but not totally, grasp. Subjects such as the Trinity and the incarnation of Christ fall into this area, as does the sovereignty and free will issue. This is not to say that we can’t understand enough to be satisfied, but only that we may not be able to get a 100% handle on it.
You make some very good observations on the issues. Your remark of Christianity only being tolerable if free will exists is right on the money. How can we love God if He’s the one really causing it? As C. S. Lewis observed, forced love is rape, and that’s not God’s style. Your comments on free will and sin are very insightful too – for example, who caused Satan to sin? God? Certainly not because the Bible specifically says that God does not tempt any to sin (James 1:13). It was a self-determined act from Satan himself. Finally your observations of various logical restrictions God has are valid as well – there are things He cannot do. God cannot lie; he cannot make a round square, etc.
So returning to your questions: how can we answer the dilemma? First, let’s examine the nature of God’s sovereignty, then look at the free will of man, and finally marry the two together and see what the end result is. I’ll use the area of salvation as an example of how God’s sovereignty and man’s free will unite.
Concerning God’s sovereignty, here are some things to think about.
God’s sovereignty means “to be in control of” all things – it can be defined as governance. This can be the case because God is prior to all things, created all things, currently sustains all things, owns all things, and is beyond all things.
God also knows all things – commonly called omniscience. And if God knows all things and how things will turn out in the future, this means that all things are determined – this is a key point to understand. They must happen the way God sees them because He only sees truth. The Psalms say, “Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely” (Psalm 139:4).
Now that said, how is God in control of all things? Psalm 115:3 says, “But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.” So an all-good and powerful God does what is right because it pleases Him. Now this equates to certain events and free will actions being under His control. For example, the book of Daniel is replete with descriptions of God’s hand being on the steering wheel of history – “the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on whom He wishes and sets over it the lowliest of men.” (Daniel 4:17). God also directs the hearts of individual rulers as Proverbs 21:1 says: “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes.”
Not only are human activities under God’s control, but so are the actions in the spiritual realm. For example, God has Satan on a leash – something the devil complained about in Job 1:10: “Have You not made a hedge about him and his house and all that he has, on every side?”
Even human decisions are under God’s sovereignty. Proverbs 16:33 says, “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” As another example, concerning salvation, Jesus said “No one comes to the Father except he is drawn by God” (John 6:44). Paul echoes this in Ephesians 1:11: “we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will”. Not only are the saved predestined, but so are the lost as Peter makes clear in 1 Peter 2:8: “for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.”
Your question dealt specifically with whether God has a purpose and plan for each person’s life. This was certainly the case of Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and Paul as each had predestined missions assigned to them by God (Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:15, Galatians 1:15).
So the bottom line is that Scripture makes it clear that God is in control of all, which is a very reassuring doctrine. An all-good and powerful God is in control and will always do the right thing. Now, what about human responsibility and free will?
Of course, one first needs to understand that we have limits on our freedom. We can’t control our lifespan (outside of normal means) or natural abilities, for example.
Human beings, who are created in the image of a free God, also have been gifted with freedom also. Free choice is just that – something that is not forced. Forced freedom is a contradiction, and just like God can’t make a round square, He can’t create forced freedom.
God told the couple in the Garden: “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely.” In 1 Samuel 15:11, God told Samuel he was grieved because Saul had freely chosen to not follow God’s instructions.
This type of refusal of God’s desire is seen quite a lot in Scripture, and provides evidence of man’s rebellious free will. Stephen told his persecutors that they were “always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did” (Acts 7:51). Peter says that the unsaved are “even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves” (2 Peter 2:1). And of course, there are Jesus’ words about those in Jerusalem: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.” (Matt 23:37). So clearly, these verses show mankind freely acting out in rebellion against God.
Now, how do God’s sovereignty and this free will of man work together? Let’s look at 3 cases – one from the Old Testament and two from the New.
In Genesis 25-27, we are given the story of Jacob and Esau. In Genesis 25:23, God told Isaac and Rebekah that “the older [Esau] shall serve the younger [Jacob].” Now that was God’s will and a prophetic statement He made about the future. The first act of human will that factors into this prediction is Esau’s selling of his birthright to Jacob – something he freely did in chapter 25. But what did father Isaac try and do? In Genesis 27:4 he’s nearing death and tells Esau to get him some food and then he will bless him – in essence make him ruler over his brother – something God said would not happen. Isaac knew this, but ignored God’s directive. But what happens? Esau goes off, but unbeknown to both Isaac and Esau, Rebekah and Jacob trick Isaac – via their free will acts – so that he ends up giving the blessing to Jacob instead. So God’s will was fulfilled, being freely carried out through the free acts of all those involved.
Now let’s switch to the New Testament and look at Judas. Jesus calls Judas in John 17:12 the “son of perdition”, which literally means “destined to perish”. Judas’s destiny was to betray Christ and perish. But were his actions coerced by God? Not at all. He freely chose to betray Christ (Matthew 26:14-16) and yield to the enemy, something Jesus points out when he says in Luke 22:22, “For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”
Finally, there’s a single verse in Acts that shows both God’s sovereignty and man’s free will in action. In Peter’s first sermon, he addresses those in Jerusalem about the death of Christ and says, “this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.” Notice: Christ’s death was a predetermined plan of God – willed by God – but Peter indicts these men has having freely murdered Jesus by nailing Him to the cross.
So these three examples show both sovereignty and free will in action. But what other things should be considered on this front?
One thing to keep in mind about God’s sovereignty/will and man’s free will is that God has made clear his *desire* for all – what we all ought to do, in other words. But His plan for what men *will* do? Well, that He has kept mostly under wraps.
And don’t forget that His plan/will can have several dimensions to it. For example, in the area of salvation, if you are as sinner, separated from God, you are going to die and spend eternity separated from God. That’s true and it is what God has willed for those who reject Him. But, when you freely change your mind and repent, and freely turn to God and ask for salvation, you are no longer a sinner separated from God. Consequently, the consequence that is inescapable for every sinner separated from God no longer applies to you because you have changed, but note that God has not changed. Every sinner separated from God receives the just punishment. Every sinner who has repented receives salvation. When you become a saved sinner, you are no longer a separated sinner. So, now the consequence that applied inevitably to every separated sinner no longer applies to you because you are not a separated sinner. That’s how God’s will combined with your own free will works in the area of salvation.
So in the end, yes, it’s hard to fully comprehend and see how God’s sovereignty and our free will can both co-exist. Usually, Christianity has a very either-or (Aristotelian) logic to it, but in this case it is both-and. Both are real and do not contradict the other.
Perhaps the best way to practically live this out in your life is to follow the advice of Psalms 37:4: “Delight yourself in the Lord; And He will give you the desires of your heart.” When His will and your free will intertwine, there is nothing better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)