Who was best at creationism, theistic evolution conference?

Hugh Ross addresses the conference in favor of old earth creation.

I've written the past four days about my attendance at Fixed Point Foundation's conference "In the Beginning: 3 Views on Creation." But I didn't give much opinion. I'm a trained journalist, and presented the speaker's words as objectively as I could. Still, I do have opinions.

I went into the conference knowing little about any of the speaker's views except for Hugh Ross. I watched his show Reasons to Believe years ago, and also read his books and heard his podcasts. Whether he's got everything exactly right none of us can know, but I was impressed that he takes science and Christian faith equally seriously and has no problem harmonizing them. I was so impressed, in fact, I bought copies of his book, The Creator and the Cosmos, and gave them to anyone who would take them.

So, needless to say, being able to see Ross up close and rub elbows with him was pretty cool. (A guy named Benjamin Moon who tweets as @CaptainAhmazing put it: "I totally just random campered Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. John Lennox. They're like my Justin Beiber and Taylor Swift.")

Much like Captain Ahmazing, it was a given I'd like Ross' presentation of old earth creationism. The question was, would Terry Mortenson, a young earth creationist or Michael Behe, a theistic evolutionist, be able to sway me?

Unbeknownst to me, John Lennox, at left, would present yet a fourth view as he spoke on opening night. Actually, Lennox's theory sounded a lot like Hugh Ross' with some differences here and there. Lennox postulates that God really did "create" on literal 24-hour days, but it took perhaps millennia for that command to be carried out before he spoke another command on another literal day and the process began again.

He was jolly in his presentation, and I liked how he said it was just a theory and he isn't willing to die for it "though some of you wish I would."

I felt something of a kinship in that every time I tackle any theological controversy I always end up believing both sides are somewhat -- if not completely -- correct. That's how I found out in Bible college I'm a Molinist on the predestination/free will debate.

Each speaker had a little under an hour to present his case, and Mortenson, the "biblical creationist" or young earther wasn't able to give me enough details without purchasing the books and DVDs he had for sale out front. Every speaker was selling books, DVDs and CDs that he pointed to for more detail, but Mortenson did so the most. Since I didn't have the money to buy any, I was left without knowing why light seems to have traveled millions of light years when the universe is only about 6,000 years old. He did touch on carbon dating being unreliable, but Hugh Ross seemed to refute that argument later.

Still, Mortenson made some points about uniformitarianism and the danger that in parts of the world where the doctrine of creation has been dropped other important doctrines have fallen like dominoes behind it -- notably, original sin. I also respected his willingness to uphold the veracity of Scripture. He did nitpick a bit, though, on some of Hugh Ross' points, i.e. saying that Moses wouldn't have used "one rotation of the earth" as one of the meanings for "day" because Moses didn't know the earth rotated. Well, no, that was just Ross' terminology for a 24-hour day, not Moses'.

On the day Behe spoke, I stayed in bed most of the day with a migraine, so I heard only the ending of his talk, though I was able to make his Q&A session the next day. I'll have to wait until I get the DVD of the conference to hear his full argument. But I did learn that he doesn't get into the theological aspects of creation, just the biology. Behe is the Lehigh University biology professor who speaks out for Intelligent Design based on the fact that plant and animal "machines" are far too complex to have occurred through chance mutations, as Charles Darwin asserted. Though a Christian, he makes no attempt to harmonize biology with Scripture, instead noting that life is "irreducibly complex." In other words, it couldn't have slowly built up from scratch with no designer guiding it along.

I liked Behe, too. In the way I respect Mortenson not wanting to see Scripture belittled, I respect Behe for not wanting to see science taken as unimportant. Though I should be clear: Both men do respect both the record of nature and Scripture. That said, I still think Ross best explains how the two work together.

But maybe this journalist was already biased to think that.

You should follow me on Twitter here and Facebook here.

Dr. Michael Behe on theistic evolution

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama – My intent was to give you a synopsis of Dr. Michael Behe’s presentation on theistic evolution, but I woke up Friday morning with a migraine, which, despite medication, only got worse.

As a result I spent most of the day in bed, praying that I would be well enough to drive an hour to hear him at 7 p.m. I awoke after 6 p.m. and decided I would be able to make the trip, but I would get there late. As it turns out, I missed about three-fourths of his talk.

I’m sure you can read much of his story at his webpage on the Lehigh University website, and also, Fixed Point Foundation is selling audio and video versions of the conference, so both you and I will be able to hear his entire talk once those are mailed out.

I think it's generally safe to say that Behe sees the complexity in creation demanding an engineer with a purpose rather than it being the result of random mutations.

When I finally made my way into the audience, Behe was talking about travelling with a friend and looking at a mountain range. “Look at that slope,” he tells the friend. “From that mountain top to the other one is an angle of 19 degrees!”

“Yeah, so what?” his friend asks.

Next they travel to see Massachusetts’ Old Man in the Mountain formation. Behe notices how the rocks resemble a human face and wonders if perhaps they were designed my some primitive culture.

Finally, they arrive at Mount Rushmore, seeing the perfectly chiseled faces of four U.S. presidents. The slope from the top to bottom of George Washington’s nose clearly was formed by a designer.

Even noted atheist Richard Dawkins admits the “appearance” of a purposeful arrangement of parts in even some of the most simple of life forms, Behe said.

Behe coined the term “irreducible complexity” for his theory, likening it to a mousetrap, which has several components necessary to make it work. If you remove half the components, he said, “you won’t get a mousetrap that works half as well. It won’t work a fourth as well. It’s a broken mousetrap.”

Behe finds it amazing so many biologists would latch on to Darwin’s theory. “The bottom line: There is strong evidence for design, little evidence for Darwinism.”

Radio host Rick Burgess closed out the evening, noting that he, too, is an Oxford graduate. He got his high school diploma from Oxford High School in Oxford, Ala.

“I’m going to ask a question I’ll bet none of these men with Ph.D.s asked,” Burgess said. “I read Genesis and I wonder stuff like: What if, instead of a snake, it had been a giraffe that tempted Eve in the garden. Can you image giraffes with no legs? What if you saw a legless giraffe out in the garden and hollered, ‘Honey, bring me a shovel or hoe!’ then tried to cut that long neck off?”

Turning serious, Burgess said that while it’s good to engage in debates such as the origin of may, Christians shouldn’t make it a litmus test for salvation.

The conference concludes on Saturday, with Q&A sessions with Behe, young earth (or biblical) creationist Dr. Terry Mortenson and old earth creationist Dr. Hugh Ross, a roundtable discussion among all three, a sermon on Genesis 1 from Gilbert Lennox and a concert by modern hymn writers Keith and Kristyn Getty.

You should follow me on Twitter here and Facebook here.

Photo: Owen Tew

I don't care what the Bible don't allow, gonna write with green ink anyhow

Quite a few Christians don't believe something in The Bible.

Even Christians who say they believe the Bible word-for-word.

To avoid getting off on a tangent arguing which verses we disagree about, let's make up an example that isn't actually in the Bible. How about: "Don't write with green ink." Let's say the Apostle Paul wrote this in III Goofians.

Some readers are going to foreswear green ink because the Bible forbids its use. Some of these foreswearers who are theologians will think up good reasons for the edict: Green represents the deadly sin envy, as in "green with envy," or perhaps the serpent who tempted Eve was a green snake. Others, who are just plain followers of the text (i.e. fundamentalists) simply note that green ink is a sin and avoid it.

Other readers who can't think of any logical reason not to use green ink -- or maybe they just think it's pretty -- will come up with reasons that this passage should be considered in context. Maybe in Paul's day you had to kill a kitten to produce green ink. Since catricide is no longer necessary to the process today, green ink is fine. Or maybe Paul was talking only to the Goofians because that city's culture associated green ink with worshiping false gods. Or maybe Paul never said it at all, and the green ink ban was put in later by makers of red ink who didn't want to change their business model.

Whatever the case, the disagreement brings about the creation of several churches based on either believing in or not believing in the green ink ban. Also, a publisher will get four theologians to contribute to a book titled "Four Views of Green Ink" in which this one verse of Scripture is dissected ad nauseam.

Then there's the whole loophole of writing in yellow, then tracing over it with blue. Is this sinful? After all, the intent is to produce green writing. Is it OK to write in green on computers since the text says "ink" and computers don't use ink?

Some people will say that anyone writing with green ink is going to hell. Others say that while green ink is clearly unbiblical, God's forgiveness is vast. And, in certain circumstances, green might be the only ink available with which to share the gospel in printed form. Is it better that the Word not be shared at all, or that it be shared in green?

In the end, the debate will not be settled, because I am right (no pun intended) and you are a child of perdition. Even though you think the same thing about me, that just makes you judgmental.

You should follow me on Twitter here and Facebook here.

Photo: Paper Mate

Give back to the community?

It's the latest buzz phrase for urging civic responsibility: Giving back to the community.

It sounds good. After all, who is opposed to building a Habitat for Humanity house or volunteering at a shelter? Nobody would knock someone for helping teach an adult struggling with illiteracy to read. Still, something about the phrase has rubbed me the wrong way -- and I couldn't put my finger on why.

There's the shaming aspect of it: The community has given to you; it's you're responsibility to give back, and how dare you not do so? But that's not what bothered me. It was something else, and it was not until I was in church this morning that I figured it out.

"Now let us give back to God our tithes and offerings," the minister said as the collection plate was about to be passed.

And that was it: I wasn't offended to be told to "give back to God," but I was offended at "give back to the community."

It's not that I don't think "the community" has given me anything and that I don't want to give anything to it. Rather, it's the mindset. I like doing things to help others. I covet opportunities to do so. But I don't do it because I feel the community has done something for me and I, therefore, owe the community something back. I do it because God has given me everything I have -- loaned it to me, really -- and I want to use what he has given me to show his love and his face to others.

You should follow me on Twitter here and Facebook here.

Photo: U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Theology: Where doctorates and the unschooled are equal?

If my car is acting up and I don't know what's wrong, I first check with my dad or my brother; they both know a lot more than I do about the subject. But if neither of them can help me fix the problem, I call my mechanic -- after all, he's an expert.

But theology seems to be one of the few subjects that no one seems willing to defer to an expert on. (Politics is another.)

Why this is so is beyond me; having the proper theology might have eternal consequences, depending on who is correct, so you'd think people would see this as a major decision. Nope. They're quite happy to just do whatever feels right to them.

But they treat their cars far more seriously even though the worst thing that is likely to happen if you guess wrong is that it will break down eventually. (Of course, if it's your breaks that are going bad, it still would be good that you've decided upon the correct theology.)

This problem stems from the fact that in a free society we may have any opinion on any subject without penalty of the state. That's a great freedom to have, but freedom of thought without consultation of experts is as dangerous as is the freedom to rebuild your own car engine without any training.

Yes, theologians and atheist and agnostic philosophers have deep divisions among themselves as to what the "truth" is, but that shouldn't stop those of us untrained in theology from seeking their advice before deciding upon an opinion of the afterlife.

Even if I want to try to fix my own toilet, I ask somebody or check the Internet first. Yet millions of thinking humans are content to concoct their own theology and assume they're right.

It's a common cry that members of organized religion blindly follow whatever they are fed. This can, indeed, be a danger, but just making up something in one's own head is no less intelligent. At least those who recite the Apostle's Creed are following a belief system that has been tested and tried by millions over several centuries. Why is that more stupid than just following one's own path?

I'm not arguing to pick a theologian or philosopher to just blindly follow; I'm just saying that no one who knows nothing about automobile engines would give his own opinion of what's making that funny noise under the hood the same weight as he would the opinion of a professional mechanic. Why do that with what might well be the eternal destiny of his soul?

For a view from someone more learned than I am (I did drop out of Bible College, after all) check out All Saints Writers Block.

You should follow me on Twitter here and Facebook here.

Traducianism vs. Creationism

Of the theories on the origin of the human soul, only two appear compatible with evangelical theology: creationism and traducianism. Creationism asserts that each soul is created by God ex nihilo, or out of nothing, while traducianism puts forth that the soul is passed down through the parents the same as is the body (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter A. Elwell, pp. 1037, 1106). Each theory has its strengths and weaknesses as well as its adherents among noted theologians.

Creationism, followed by Aristotle, Jerome, Pelagius, John Calvin, modern Roman Catholicism and Reformed theologians, says that each individual soul is created immediately (by his direct hand, without using outside help) by God and is placed in the body at conception or soon afterward (Theologia, David H. Wietzke). The material body is passed down through generations by the parents, but the soul is created by God and placed in the body. The Genesis account of creation states that the body was taken from the earth, while the spirit came directly from God. "This distinction is kept up throughout the Bible, where body and soul are not only represented as different substances, but also as having different origins," says L. Berkhof in his Systematic Theology (p. 199).

Scriptures commonly used to back the creationist view include: "The dust (body) will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it." (Ecc. 12:7); "O God, God of the spirits of all flesh." (Num. 16:22); "Thus says God … who gives breath to the people on (the earth) and spirit to whose who walk in it." (Isa. 42:5); The Lord "forms the spirit of man within him." (Zech. 12:1).

This view boasts many strengths. Wayne Grudem points to Psalm 127:3 ("Sons are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward.") as an indication that the entire person, both soul and body, are a creation of God and can therefore not be attributed to the parents alone. (Systematic Theology, pp. 484, 485.) Berkhof (p.199) points out that creationism prevents a division of the soul, which he says traducianism requires. Also, he says, it prevents the conclusion that Christ shared in the guilt of Adam’s sin. Had Christ’s soul been imparted from parent to child since Adam, Christ would have inherited original sin.

These arguments notwithstanding, creationism also has its weaknesses. Augustus H. Strong in Systematic Theology (p. 493) argues that the theory makes God the author of evil since he would be creating a sinless soul and forcing it to become corrupt by uniting it to a fallen body. Berkhof (p. 200) points out that it might be said creationism "ascribes to the beast nobler powers of propagation than to man" since animals reproduce after their kind, but man needs God to reproduce the spiritual portion of himself. Further, says Berkhof, it ignores the fact that God now works through secondary causes. But he notes that the objection isn’t very serious to those who don’t hold a deistic worldview. Finally, William G.T. Shedd in Dogmatic Theology (Vol. 2, p. 28) says, "The few texts that are quoted in favor of creationism are as easily applicable to traducianism." (e.g. Isa. 57:16, "The souls which I have made." There is no distinction between soul and body proved.)

The strongest objection appears to be that of God creating sinless souls that are forced to sin. Roman Catholics believe man is no longer created in the image of God, but receives this gift, so the objection for them becomes moot. (Wietzke, Cornelius Jaarsma, A Christian Theory of the Person). For Reformed theologians, this is a more difficult objection to answer. Certain passages, such as the Heb. 7:10 reference to Levi in the body of Abraham paying the tithe to Melchizedek, would probably be ascribed to metaphorical language. (Wietzke.)

Traducianism, followed by Tertullian, Martin Luther, the Eastern Church and some Reformed theologians such as Strong, asserts that since man reproduces after his kind, the soul is part of that which is procreated along with the body. While God is the Creator of the individual soul, this creation is mediate – it is done through secondary means (Elwell p.1106). God created for six days, then rested from his work of creating on the seventh day and has been at rest since. Scripture says that God breathed the breath of life into Adam, giving him a soul, but no mention is made of God giving a soul to Eve or any human descendant thereafter (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, p. 254). And Heb. 7:10 credits Levi with paying a tithe to Melchizedek because, though unborn, he was in the body of his ancestor Abraham (Wietzke).

Scriptures cited by traducianists include "(God) rested on the seventh day from all His work which God had created and made" (Gen. 2:2); "(Levi) was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him." (Heb. 7:10); "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man." (1 Cor. 11:8).

The traducianist position makes for a simpler understanding of how Adam’s descendants are culpable for original sin. Perhaps the creationists are correct that the corrupt nature is imputed because of Adam’s federal headship, and thereby a representative of humanity as a whole. But if this assumption is incorrect, it may be difficult to explain why this imputation is fair. It may be argued that imputation of sin is no less fair than imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the Christian since neither is deserved. But for those who cannot conceive of a God who declares rational beings corrupt before they have done good or bad, traducianism is the only logical choice since it says the soul is passed down from sinful parents. And an Arminian could argue further that there is indeed a difference between imputation of sin and imputation of righteousness since no human ever chose to be born, but some have chosen to be "born again," thus doing something to receive the reward of imputed righteousness.

Tertullian was said to have argued that "our first parent bore within him the undeveloped germ of all mankind." (Shedd, p. 7) This might be looked at the same as a single-cell zygote that divides into two cells, then into four, etc., until something more resembling a human being develops. The single cell was the complete human at that time, although some years later it became a fully mature person. Adam (the male and female together) was complete humanity at the moment of original sin. Through procreation, humanity has since come to encompass millions more persons, just as the zygote divided cells. I am of Adam just as I am of a single-cell zygote. And if my body is of Adam, why not my soul? As a result, Shedd says (p.14), Adam’s posterity "sinned the first sin being seminally existent and present."

Hodge (p.255) notes that one of the strongest arguments in favor of traducianism is the fact that "ethnical, national, family and even parental peculiarities of mind and temper" are transmitted to children. This would point to a derivation not only of body, says Hodge, but also of soul. This argument, however, also leads to one of the strongest objections to this theory.

Creationists say that if the traducianist view is valid, then the soul of one or both parents must give of part of itself. Says Berkhof (p.198), one of three theories must be used to avoid this problem: (a) the soul of the child had a previous existence; (b) the soul of the child is potentially present in the seed of the mother and/or father, which equates to materialism; or (c) the soul is created in some way by the parents, making them creators. Further, Christ, if fully human, would have inherited original sin through Mary since he would have obtained his soul through her. Perhaps God created a special human soul for Christ, but that would make him of a different human race than the rest of humanity, negating his ability to redeem the fallen (Wietzke).

But one or both of the parents giving part of their soul to create the new one isn't really necessary any more than one or both parents give part of their body to create a new one. Certainly, the father contributes semen and the mother contributes an egg, but these are in their bodies, not part of them.

As to the objection of soul division, one needs only look to the animal world. A starfish, for example, can be cut into five equal parts and each part will regenerate a completely new starfish (Lynda Harding, California State at Fresno, Asexual Reproduction) An animal that previously possessed one spirit or consciousness now possesses five. While a starfish is not a human able to know or reject God, it is certainly not a plant and so it has consciousness. It may be impossible to fathom that a single thinking entity, no matter how primitive, could become five distinct entities, yet this is the case with the starfish. Is the consciousness of this animal divided or are four new ones created? It is impossible to know, but by whichever means, it does happen.

As to Christ inheriting original sin through Mary: Following traducianism’s linkage of the body and soul, it is possible that no human inherits sin through his mother’s soul any more than he inherits mitochondrial DNA from his father. Mitochondria are life-giving organelles that power every organ of the body (Charles Pellegrino, Return to Sodom and Gomorrah, p.67) but they are passed down only through the mother. In the same fashion, only the father can pass down the Y chromosome. Is it possible that only the father can pass down the corrupted nature? If so, why wouldn’t the mother contribute, being fallen herself?

If the body and soul are indeed linked, one might consider the difference between the male and female gametes. A female is born with every egg she will ever possess*, but the male produces sperm throughout his lifetime. So sperm is perpetually produced inside a corrupted body, but the ovum might theoretically be traced back to Eve before she committed original sin. If the ovum is considered uncorrupted then a supernatural fertilization from the Holy Spirit would produce a sinless person who also shared in our same humanity.

Another objection to traducianism is that it asserts that God only acts mediately, or through secondary causes, since the original act of creation (Berkhof, p. 198). While this may be the position of some traducianists, it is not an ironclad rule. God could possibly create souls through secondary means yet still create other things immediately. One does not imply the other.

In the end, traducianists seem to have the more solid arguments, though there is no absolute biblical proof for either side. Realizing this, it is best to agree with Augustine that this subject, while intriguing, should not be overemphasized. Rather, all should agree that the soul’s "proper abode" and "homeland" is with God (Elwell p. 1037).

*Research in 2004 challenged this assertion, but later research affirmed it.

(See this article in Portuguese.)

Predestination and Free Will (Molinism)

It's all a simple matter of counterfactual conditionals.

Huh?

Let's call them counterfactuals for short. They're something that could have been but wasn't -- such as the Allies losing World War II. Could've happened, but it didn't. Or a Cubs-Red Sox World Series. Again, possible but ...

And it could have been that I never reconciled how human free will and God's sovereignty over who becomes "elected" to eternal life could co-exist. But I did so through the concept of counterfactuals.

For centuries Calvinists and Arminians have argued over how people become "saved." Calvinists insist it's through election. Armenians counter it's through choice.

Calvinists say mankind gave up his right to freely choose righteousness when Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden fruit. As a result, all humanity is hopelessly lost. But wait! God has chosen some to be redeemed. He calls them through irresistible grace. At first blush it seems unfair that God would redeem a few, but leave the rest to suffer eternal punishment. But Calvinists answer that God isn't required to save anybody; therefore, those whom he does save are simply unworthy beneficiaries of his kindness. All are incapable, because of the fall in the garden, from choosing God, but he, in his graciousness, allows some to come to him. And they must come, since God is sovereign, or has control, over everything.

Some Arminians call this a puppet show. If God essentially causes everything to happen, there is no free will at all, they say. As a result, God would be unjust in holding people accountable for their actions. After all, how could Edgar Bergen punish his ventriloquist dummy Charlie McCarthy for sassing him when it was Bergen himself who forced poor Charlie to say it? But if Bergen's daughter, Candice, sassed him it was something that she had made a choice to do, and she could be sent to her room without supper.

Which is it?
So we appear to have a choice to make: free will or predestination. But it's not that easy; there appear to be passages in the Bible that support both positions. This dilemma is hardest on biblical literalists since they believe every word in the Bible to be the very breath of God. So now we have to figure out how God is sovereign, or in control of everything, yet can still hold us accountable for our "choices," if they really indeed are that.

Some Calvinists reconcile these two seemingly contradictory positions through something they call soft determinism. One position states that while people's actions are indeed made through free will, it is of a different sort than most think. What happens, they say, is that God has decided what will happen then organizes events so that the person can make no other choice. So the choice is freely made, but because of the person's previous experiences combined with his or her personality there is only one "choice" that the person will make. It's like if you hit your finger with a hammer, you'll scream out in pain. You really have no other "choice" than to holler and try to do something to alleviate your suffering. But some people will use profanity while others will simply scream, "Ouch!" or something else printable, based on their personalities. Anyone can cuss, but some won't because they rarely or never do, and so their choice is "made" for them ahead of time.

A more popular form of soft determinism says that God uses people's free choices to determine what will happen. In other words, people choose to do whatever they want, but God's knowledge of the future allows him to know all those free choices ahead of time and so they are fixed and unchangeable --predestined. So if I make plans to meet you for lunch tomorrow, then I decide not to show up, it was predestined. After all, it was something that was always going to have happened since the beginning of time. I made the choice to stand you up, but it was destiny nonetheless.

Weaknesses
Both these positions have weaknesses that make me unable to accept them. The first one does nothing to get rid of the cosmic puppeteer view. God is still orchestrating what happens; he just "uses" free will to do so. The second view robs God of his sovereignty, which means that he isn't in charge of everything that happens after all. But the Bible clearly states that God has predetermined who will be saved, and even the good works they'll do. Our conundrum has not been solved.

But the Arminians are of even less help. They simply argue that God's sovereignty is like that of a king. A king can't force his subjects to obey his will, but he does have authority over them and can punish their disobedience. In the end, we can do whatever we want and "sovereignty" has to be defined down.

On the far end of the spectrum are "open theists" who believe that God chooses to not even know the future, and so how can he predetermine it? He can know it, of course, but chooses not to.

Both these views make prophesy something of an educated guess. Although they say God can ensure his prophesies come true by intervening himself to point things in the direction he wants them to go.

So I'm left unhappy with my "choices" in this argument, if you'll pardon the pun. And that's where another option is open to me: counterfactual conditionals.

Simply stated, God knows not only everything that has ever happened and ever will happen, he also knows everything that could have happened. And there are an infinite number of alternative scenarios since there are "choices" being made by individuals all the time. STOP READING THIS. Did you? If you're still here you made the choice to ignore me and keep reading. But you could have said, "Fine, this essay is stupid anyway." God knows what would have happened if you'd stopped and what will happen since you didn't. Will it make much of a difference? Maybe, maybe not. But a lot of our other choices in life do indeed make huge differences in how our lives, and the lives of others, turn out.

Should I marry, and if so, whom? What should I do for a living? Should I try to find another job? Should we have children? All of these are choices that make a difference in the world. What if Hitler's parents had never married each other? But they did.

Before he spoke creation into being, God could have looked at every possible world that would exist. In many of these possible worlds people would have been able to make free choices. God then picked the one he wanted to "actualize" into being. He knew what would happen in the world where your parents never met -- and he chose not to create that world. So in that sense, he knew he would create you from the beginning. And he also knew every free choice you'd make in this factual world and in all the counter-factual worlds in which you would have existed. He picked this one to actualize, so in a sense he predestined your "choices." But you've freely made them nonetheless.

And so, in this model free will and predestination are able to stand side-by-side without one canceling out the other -- if you choose to believe it.



Predestination verses
"… also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the council of His will .." – Ephesians 1:11 NAS

"For he (God) chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love, he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will …" – Ephesians 1:4-5 NIV

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called he also justified; those he justified he also glorified." – Romans 8:29-30 NIV

Free will verses

Ephesians 1:11 does not mean that God works out everything, just that everything he does work out is done so according to his will. – Bruce Reichenbach

"But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves." – Luke 7:30 NAS

"You have not because you ask not." (Proving the future can be changed by our requests). – James 4:2 NAS

God had to "start over" with Noah (Genesis 6-9), and with King David (1 Samuel 15-16).

"Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God" – James 4:4b

NIVNew American Standard and New International Version used by permission.

Copyright (c) 2003 Owen Tew

Suggested reading: Predestination & Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty & Human Freedom by John Feinberg, Norman Geisler, Bruce Reichenbach and Clark Pinnock (Edited by David Basinger and Randall Basinger.

Here's a comment left from when this was posted on my old Web site:

So God has contingency plans for each and every person in the world to try to draw us to Him. He will use every means possible ("the hound of heaven"), but the choice to choose or reject Him still exists. Even though He has the knowledge of how an individual will respond to Him, I don't believe He ever utterly abandons him from the start. I think He still uses everything possible to break through the barrier of that person's heart. All are invited to join the wedding feast, but few choose to come (see Matt. 22:1-13).

This sounds fine, but it isn't scripturally sound. For instance, what is God's contingency plan for Pharaoh? Did he really use "everything possible to break through the barrier of that person's heart."? I see that:

And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go."

We must cleave more strongly to a few biblical ideals. It is not good to systematize your biblical theology to the point that you give a little from each side (free will and predestination) so that the resulting theory doesn't offend any biblical sentiment TOO much. Your systematic theology must NEVER and in NO point offend your biblical theology. We must cleave to the fact that God strongly implies that men have a choice and Jesus asks us to choose him and God hardens hearts and predestines saints. (cf. Mark 11:22, Joshua 24:15, Exodus 4:21, Ephesians 1:4-6). All these points are true, there is no contesting this fact. God chooses, men also choose. If this bothers you, trust God! It can be understood by numerous analogies. I like one in particular:

Imagine a lion sitting before a huge bowl of fruit loops, deliciously poised on a podium with a spoon to the side if he chooses to use it, and slightly to the side of the bowl of fruit loops, there is a large pile of slightly rotting gazelle. Which will he choose? He chooses the gazelle not because he has no choice and it was predestined by the ones who put the two choices before him, but because he's a lion!! A sinful man chooses to spit into Jesus's face and crucify him daily (That is, of course, deny the gospel) because he's SINFUL. The only reason a man would choose to follow Jesus is because he's not sinful anymore. This would be the Holy Spirit acting in what is called regeneration. The Holy Spirit takes away a man's heart of stone and gives him an heart of flesh making him able to respond to the gospel. Then he sees the fruit loops for what they are: non-nutritious, defiling rank stench and the gazelle (gospel) as fulfilling, great and wonderful. I hope this helps someone. Let me know what you think of my article. Feel free to e-mail me. again that is dartme18 at yahoo dot com. Talk to you later

Aaron

12/13/07

owentew says:

Aaron,

I agree with your statements, but I think you have misunderstood mine.

I am willing to admit that my views are just a theory and quite possibly wrong. But I did not arrive at them apart from biblical theology. In fact, my point is that I am a biblical literalist, yet the Scriptures seem to both justify human free will and predestination by God. My theology is based on an attempt to square all the Scriptures with each other, not to mesh Calvinism with Arminianism.

Your view might well be right and mine wrong. I don't think anyone will end up in hell based of whether he is an Arminian, Calvinist or Molinist. I believe there will be people from each group in heaven together. There also will be people who never think about such issues.

I'm fine with everyone believing whatever makes him or her comfortable on this issue. I present this argument here only because I've had people ask me how both free will and predestination can both be true. And this is my theory.

The issue of salvation is exactly as you said: regeneration by the Holy Spirit. If you get that right, and you experience it in your own heart, you are right with God, and that is all that really matters, not these deep theological issues that God is probably laughing at all of us for fighting over. If he ever lets us know the truth on this issue, we'll probably all be red-faced.
12/13/07