Home » Posts tagged 'freedom'

Tag Archives: freedom

The Knotty Subject of Free Will: Do We Have It Or Is It an Illusion? (Part Two)

Part One

Free Will

When you read “free will,” you read two words, one of which is “will.”  “Will” is simple.  A mind is capable of choosing, like ordering a flavor of ice cream or reaching into the candy bowl for Snickers or Reeses.

There are layers here.  The will is the capability of the mind choosing, but a motive directs the will in its choice.  Many different factors may or can combine to bring someone to volition.  Scripture deals with them in several various instances.

The word “free” has to do with opportunity or power.  Someone can and has the opportunity to do what he wants.  The question arises, does anyone truly have the power and opportunity?  Is anyone really free in his will?

In part one, I see in scripture that the free will of man exists by the very use of the terminology “free will” in scripture.  What though goes into free will?

Concerns in the Subject of Free Will

From my vantage point, I see six main types of concerns in the subject of free will.  One, God created man, wants love from man, and man needs free will to love God.  Hence, God created man with free will.

Two, free will explains suffering.  God allowed men a choice to sin and the consequential curse that brings suffering to men.  Suffering isn’t God’s fault.  It’s ours.  This does not mean that God cannot allow suffering or deliver from suffering, but it rose from man’s sin.

Three, apparently if man has free will, then he becomes the deciding factor of salvation and God doesn’t then get the glory.  This assumes a salvation decision makes man’s salvation by works.  Scripture doesn’t read that way, but it’s a kind of logical argument for determinists.

Four, if man doesn’t have free will, then God determined sin and becomes the author of sin.  God is not the author of sin according to James 1:13.  His hatred of sin would also assume He’s not the author of sin.  God created beings with the potential to sin, but He didn’t create sin.

Five, the Bible does not at all read deterministic.  God is sovereign, but His sovereignty doesn’t contradict man’s free will.  The two do not contradict.  God does not cede His authority by allowing men to decide.

The Debilitation of the Sin Nature

Six, free will given to man by God is debilitated by the corruption of his sin nature, even as seen in 2 Peter 2:19:

While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

This bondage is so complete that Jesus says in John 15:5:

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Without Jesus, man can do nothing.  This is also seen in 1 Corinthians 2:14:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The Illusion of Free Will

Men are so darkened in their minds that they operate in bondage.  This speaks of the illusion of free will.  In Romans 8:8, Paul writes that man in the flesh “cannot please God.”  That doesn’t sound free, does it?  He cannot.  In the previous verse, “The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.”  The carnal mind cannot subject to the law of God.  That also does not sound free.

I hear today especially young people about their loss of free will.  They even consider this “loss” as a kind of deviance.  On the other hand, they consider the choice of sin to be free.  Sin isn’t freedom.  Jesus said in John 8:34:  “Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.”

Sin is not freedom.  It is bondage.  What I’m writing here is why the subject of free will is a knotty problem.  Their freedom is illusory.

Freedom comes from God.  The way out comes from God.  The grace of God allows free will.  God created man with free will, but sin brought bondage.  God’s grace brings freedom.

Satan deceives everyone and especially young people today, that they are free because they can choose evil.  That “choice” is an illusion.  The exhilaration of their choosing evil is part of the deception and bondage.  They find themselves in great peril in these chains of darkness.  And they don’t view their new Satanic religion as deviant.  It’s the same sociological pathology held by the opponents of Noah while he prepared the ark.

The Inclination of the Grace of God

On the subject of free will, confronting the knottiness, Jonathan Edwards distinguished between natural ability and moral ability.  Sin does not stop a man from making choices.  He makes them.  Because man can and does make choices, he has responsibility before God.

Even though he chooses, moral depravity chains a man to sinfulness.  Everything he does is ruined in some way, so that he makes no good choices even when he makes good choices.  That sounds contradictory, but he cannot please God and that makes everything bad.  Even when he’s trying to please God, his remaining rebellion and rejection of truth ruins those too.  That is the moral inability of Edwards.

Edwards contrasts with ancient theologian and heretic, Pelagius.  Pelagius saw inability as injustice, because God commanded man to obey.  If man couldn’t, then God was unjust.  God isn’t unjust, so man must be still good to a certain extent.  Pelagius depended on flawed logic like determinists also do.

God can hold man responsible for choices, because he has the ability to choose.  The freedom of choice, however, is an illusion to all except those who encounter the inclination of the grace of God.  God’s grace exerts its power in the means God chooses for the reality of free will.  The lost have free will in their natural ability and potential for moral ability, ability only experienced by true believers through the grace of God.  They are free indeed (John 8:36).

How Does a Culture, Including a Christian Culture, Survive Without a Cancel Culture?

Previous Articles (One, Two, Three)

“Cancel culture” has a nice ring to it, a kind of poetic rhythm when one says the two words together.  Go ahead, say them, “cancel culture.”  It does now have a Wikipedia article.  When I googled books with the terminology “cancel culture,” a glut of books appeared written in 2020-2021 with “Cancel Culture” in the title.  I’ve not read one of them.  I wanted to know how early the term appeared, because it’s been on my radar for at the most two years.

A book, Environmental Impact Assessment, written in 1979, reads:

We have come to the realization—yet again—that knowledge is power, that we need to keep building on our science and be ever mindful that a democratic society is based on genuine public engagement, not the so-called cancel culture that is denying genuine dialogue (author’s italics).

Before I graduated from high school, the quote appeared.  Surprising.  That’s the first and only usage I found in the twentieth century.  I don’t know who popularized it.  I went about trying to trace it, but I don’t know who originated the terminology.  Originally, it seems, it was “call-out culture,” the idea here being that described by Adrienne Matei on November 1, 2019 in The Guardian:

The contemporary idea of a “call-out”, however, generally refers to interpersonal confrontations occurring between individuals on social media. In theory, call-outs should be very simple – someone does something wrong, people tell them, and they avoid doing it again in the future. Yet you only need to spend a short amount of time on the internet to know that call-out culture is in fact extremely divisive.

She pointed to a statement by former President Obama in an Obama Foundation Summit, which was on October 30, 2019, in which he said:

If I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right, or used the wrong word or verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself, because, ‘Man, you see how woke I was. I called you out.’ That’s not activism.

The rise of the term “cancel culture” seems to occur in the middle of 2020, which also happened to be right at the beginning of the Covid-19 ‘pandemic.’  Now it is well entrenched, and the earliest popular book seems to be Primal Screams, which said:

Consider an example that materialized in March 2019, captured in a New York Times piece called “Teen Fiction and the Perils of Cancel Culture.”  It reported the case a (sic) young black man who identified as gay and was employed as a “sensitivity reader” by various publishing houses.  In that capacity, he enforced “cancel culture” (i.e., the flagging that progressive groupthink would deem unacceptable).

Wouldn’t it be an interesting job to be a “sensitivity reader”?  I had never heard of it until this quote.  I googled that too, and it appears a lot, 40,000 times.  As a pastor, a chunk of your congregation could take that job while listening to your sermons.  The New York Times article was written on March 8, 2019.

Cancel culture emerged as perhaps one of the top issues for the 2022 mid-term elections.  The cancel culture tried to cancel Joe Rogan on Spotify and failed.  On the other hand, Whoopi Goldberg said something offensive about the Holocaust on her show, The View, and they cancelled her for a few weeks, so she could take time to reflect on her ignorance, stupidity, or callousness.  Another aspect, it seems, of cancel culture is a reaction to the unvaccinated, losing one’s job even if he has natural immunity.  This relates to the trucker protest on the U.S. Canadian border, which is bigger than a vaccination issue.

During this last six months I’ve worked on a lot of writing projects and wrote almost two chapters on sanctification for our book, The Salvation That Keeps On Saving.  The two chapters are “Dedication and Sanctification” and then “The Biblical Theology of Sanctification,” the latter of which I’m halfway done, the former I’ve completed.  For the latter, I am looking at every use of the related Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament words for sanctification, which is almost 1,000.

You reader know that God canceled in the most severe way everyone on earth except for eight people in Genesis 6-9.  He ordered the cancellation of all the Canaanites.  When Israel didn’t, Israel suffered greatly for that.  The Assyrians and Babylonians tried to and succeeded greatly at cancelling Israel.  The Bible requires churches to cancel someone’s church membership, called by us, “church discipline.”  Jesus taught that in Matthew 18:15-17 (See our book, A Pure Church).

God says in Leviticus 20:24, “But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people.”  Two verses later, He continues: “And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.”  It’s not just Old Testament.  Jesus said in Matthew 13:49, “So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just.”  Many more examples occur.

I’m sure that you would know that cancellation is a biblical teaching, that conservatives were canceling people before liberals or leftists were.  It’s tough to say, but our country found it’s unity around the ability to agree on who deserves cancellation.  The left wants to cancel anyone who uses “hate speech” against any type of LGBTQ, etc.  You know that.  It’s not just that, but also going back into the usage of certain unacceptable words and whether someone appeared in black face in the 1970s.
The John T. Scopes trial, the so-called monkey trial, dealt with cancellation of evolution from the public school.  Now schools cancel creation.  No one can teach creation in public schools.  Conservatives, who once cancelled evolutionists, would like intelligent design at least taught.  The government cancels the ten commandments.  Governments cancel statutes of the founding fathers.  At one time, everyone would have cancelled a statue to Karl Marx.  A tiny few would like a Hitler statue erected.
The story of cancellation seems to be the following.  Cancellation was mainly conservative.  Conservatives supported it.  Now conservatives are cancelled on nighttime television, movies, mainstream media.  Everyone goes to their own network to hear their news.  Both sides cancel each other.  However, in the mainstream conservatives are cancelled.  Conservatives now, putting the first amendment up there in a greater way, accept a foul mouthed Joe Rogan.  In an effort to reject cancellation, they accept what they cancelled themselves.  Does this have a better future?
Some say that sunlight is the best antiseptic.  There is perhaps a scientific point there.  Lysol might argue against it.  If we allow everyone to say whatever they want to say everywhere on every outlet, we will be better off.  Sarah Palin is challenging this in court against the New York Times, who she says, libeled her.  Maybe they did.
What I’m writing is that cancellation is a Christian, biblical position.  I get that we don’t like being cancelled.  The better thing might be to practice biblical separation.  Others are practicing a form of separation, that isn’t biblical.  If you don’t support their sin, they cancel you.  This is the kind of cancellation the Roman Catholic Church did during the Inquisition.  We don’t like that.  We should oppose that.
Cancellation defines morality.  What will you separate over?  The left separates over its values.  The right separates over theirs.  Is the solution to accept anything or everything?  This is new too.  An acceptance culture is not the solution to a cancel culture.
Scripture is clear that without cancellation, severing or separation, a culture cannot continue.  It won’t.  What we value cannot be preserved without separating it from what will corrupt it.

Mandatory Vaccination: Stop it Only One Way

 Mandatory / Compulsory Vaccination?

With COVID-19, there is a renewed call for compulsory or mandatory vaccination. Should vaccines be compelled?

I do not believe that the government should force parents to vaccinate their children against their will.  In the Bible, parental authority over children is so vast that parents could even bring rebellious children to trial and, if found guilty of consistent, persistent, and willful rebellion and wickedness, have their children executed (Deuteronomy 21:18-21; note that there is no record of parents actually following through on this with their children, as very, very few parents would want to do it, but it still shows the Biblical position on parental authority in relationship to the State). Similarly, children who cursed their parents or hit their parents would “surely be put to death” (Exodus 21:15-17) if there were multiple witnesses who were willing to testify to the fact (no Biblical indication specifies that the parents were required to testify against their children or, for that matter, that anyone at any time was compelled to testify against anyone else).

When Romans 13 outlines the role of the government, Biblically speaking, it is a “night watchman” sort of system with very limited authority.  The government is to punish evil but is not even supposed to actively do good–that is the realm of individuals and groups in society such as churches–but only to “praise” the good without financial support (Romans 13:3-4).  Biblical government is, in many ways, very libertarian on the spectrum of political ideology (learn more about the role of the government according to God’s Word here).  Therefore, based on God’s revelation, a strong support for parental authority and a strong view on a very limited role for government leads me to oppose mandatory / compulsory vaccination.  Furthermore, requiring parents who have religious objections to vaccinate is a very dangerous restriction of religious freedom.

Furthermore, in American history compulsory vaccination has led to many other restrictions on civil liberties.  A 1902 mandatory vaccination law passed in Massachusetts in response to a smallpox epidemic was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which concluded that compulsory vaccination was constitutional in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) by a 7 to 2 margin. For the benefit of the collective or group, individual liberty could be repressed.  The precedent set by this decision allowed for the promotion of eugenics; for example, in 1927 the case Buck v. Bell upheld the mandatory sterilization of a person considered “feeble-minded,” arguing that “The principle that sustains
compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian
tubes.”  The only precedent cited in case law was 
Jacobson v. Massachusetts.  The (alleged) collective good from forcibly sterilizing undesirable people overrode the individual liberty not to be–to describe it Biblically–eunuchized.  The expanded state powers that justified compulsory vaccination were used to uphold eugenic sterilization (learn more in the article here).  The power given to the State over parents that is involved in allowing compulsory vaccination also justifies the elimination of many other civil liberties.

Thus, I am against compulsory vaccination, and I believe you should be against it as well.

What is not a reason I oppose compulsory vaccination

I am against mandatory vaccination because of parental rights.  I am not against mandatory vaccination because vaccines do not work, are dangerous, or are ineffective.  Vaccines are safe, are effective, and are a great blessing to mankind in this fallen world that God has allowed scientists to discover utilizing the Biblically-based scientific method. Thanks to vaccines, diseases such as polio, typhoid, smallpox, yellow fever, and rabies no longer kill, cripple, and cause terrible suffering to millions and millions of people.  Anti-vax propaganda simply does not reflect scientific reality in the world God has made. Common ideas, such as the lie that vaccines cause autism, was spread in order to make its author a lot of money.  If you do not vaccinate your children, you are increasing the likelihood that they will die or suffer because you believed scientifically inaccurate propaganda.  You are also not loving your neighbor as yourself, for you are increasing the likelihood that other children or adults will get sick or die.  Furthermore, you endanger the children of responsible parents who vaccinate their children, as their children, when too young to get vaccinated, may still be infected and get sick or die because you have refused to protect your own children from disease.  (Learn more about vaccine safety here.)  You may say that you don’t need to vaccinate because others do, and so there is herd immunity–but you had better keep your kids away from the airport, then, and had better not teach them to evangelize in an area that has a lot of immigrants.  You definitely would want to keep them away from the mission field.

In other words, I believe that the government should allow parents to make foolish decisions, because allowing them to make foolish decisions–like not getting vaccinated themselves or having their children vaccinated, which is very foolish–is not as bad as the consequences are of the increased governmental power involved in compulsory vaccination.  In Israel drunkenness was a sin, but it was not illegal.  Failing to help the poor was wicked, but it was not illegal.  God hated divorce, but it was legal.  Failure to love one’s neighbor as oneself was a horrible crime, but it was legal.  It should be legal for people to make all kinds of bad, foolish decisions, because increased government power is even worse than the bad, foolish decisions.

The only way to stop mandatory vaccination

While I believe that the position above is Biblically and practically correct, it is also one that is a loser politically.  If enough people believe anti-vax propaganda and stop vaccinating, it is certain that there will be more outbreaks in the United States of easily preventable diseases, and children will die for no good reason.  Enough angry parents showing pictures of happy babies and healthy children that are now dead or handicapped from diseases because of anti-vaccination lies will create an unstoppable wave of public support for mandatory vaccination.

Without mandatory vaccination, more children will get sick, suffer life-long hurt, and die.  I believe that the less-easy-to-see consequences of mandatory vaccination are worse than this awful and very visible consequence of not mandating vaccines. But is that going to win in a room full of angry parents holding pictures of their now dead children and demanding their congressman support mandatory vaccination?  Nope.  Not a chance.  Vaccines will become compulsory if enough people stop vaccinating.

So how can mandatory vaccination be stopped?  The only way to stop it is by vaccinating voluntarily.  If only a small enough percentage of the population doesn’t vaccinate, the people who are putting their children’s lives and the lives of other children at risk can fly under the radar, believe their misinformation, and not cause too much damage.  But as their number grows big enough to compromise or eliminate herd immunity, public pressure from the death, disease, and carnage caused by their irresponsible actions will lead to mandatory vaccination.

So do you want to stop mandatory vaccination?  Have your children vaccinated, encourage others to vaccinate, and fight inaccurate and unscientific anti-vaccination propaganda.

There is no other long-term way to stop mandatory vaccination.

TDR

Protests and Preaching / Prayer Unequal in California: You Can’t Go to Church, But You Can Violate the Law in Leftist Protests

 Yesterday I took the following short video in downtown San Francisco of radical leftist protesters blocking a street–it is slightly over a minute long, and can be seen on YouTube, or you can watch the embedded version below:

People illegally blocking the street for a long time in their cars is fine; there were no fines, no tickets, no penalties of any kind.  The “Poor People’s Campaign,” a radical left-wing organization whose platform “demands” crazy things like “establish[ing] 100% debt forgiveness for all borrowers earning less than $50,000; up to $50,000 of debt forgiveness for borrowers earning less than $100,000 … waiv[ing] all interest payments,” enabling illegal immigrants to “work and live without fear of arrest, deportation, or detention,” “ban[ning] the use of force” by police “against people who are unarmed,” so that if a policeman is getting punched in the face by a thug over and over again he just needs to deal with it, and if somehow the criminal is arrested, to “end cash bail” so that he can get back out again and never show up to court, and gobs of other nutty nonsense.

Were there any fines issued for blocking the street and tying up
traffic for a substantial period of time? 

No.

Were there any tickets issued? No.

Were the vehicles towed away? No.

Blocking the street to bash Mitch McConnell, to demand a
leftist and activist Supreme Court, to demand trillions of dollars in
spending, to destroy the free market, to scream leftist slogans, to
support socialism, radical Democrats, oppose Republicans, limited
government, and the U. S. Constitution, and so on, is perfectly
acceptable in the California.  Certainly if the protestors are not wearing masks or are not socially distanced it is also not a problem.

What about going to church in California? Fines–punishment–threats of
jail time–the whole force of the law bearing down on law-abiding,
peaceful Christians, who do not block streets, scream at people, cause
traffic jams, or demand the confiscation of the property of others in
the name of socialism–all they want is to be left alone to worship God
and obey the Bible. Is that acceptable in California? Nope. No way!
Just ask North Valley Baptist Church pastor Jack Trieber; Grace Community Church pastor John MacArthur; and the many other churches
suffering persecution in California.

No double standard here.  Just move on.

Oh wait–you can’t move
on–the leftist crazies are blocking the busy street in downtown, demanding
the end of the American republic.

TDR

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives