Home » Posts tagged 'liberty'
Tag Archives: liberty
The Knotty Subject of Free Will: Do We Have It Or Is It an Illusion? (Part Two)
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).
Is Substantive Due Process Anything? What About This Court Arguing for a Substantive Right to Life? The War Begins
The founding fathers of the United States, the authors of the Constitution, also ratified by the states, wrote to limit the powers of the federal government. They listed the powers and reserved to the states those they didn’t. They included a bill of rights. This guaranteed to everyone in the entire nation those rights. The Constitution imparts all the powers of the federal government and all the rights guaranteed to all the people of the United States.
Are there other rights in the Constitution of the United States other than those enumerated in the bill of rights and its other amendments? The history of Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution both from loose and strict constructionists says, “Yes,” there are other rights. They call those substantive rights. They relate to life, liberty, and property, those three appearing only in the amendments, but assumed or implied rights from the history and tradition of the United States.
In Dobbs, the Supreme Court decided no right to abortion occurred in the Constitution, overturning Roe. In the 213 pages of Dobbs, the term “substantive” occurs 39 times.
Justice Alito Argues
Justice Alito writes the first usage of “substantive” on page 2 in this sentence:
The underlying theory on which Casey rested—that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides substantive, as well as procedural, protection for “liberty”—has long been controversial.
Casey argued that a liberty or right to abortion did exist as a substantive right in the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In its next usage also on page 2, Alito defines substantive rights as “those rights deemed fundamental that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.” Alito then on page 19 argues for the majority in Dobbs that the fourteenth amendment protects two categories of rights, first those “guaranteed by the first eight Amendments.” Alito continues on page 20:
The second category—which is the one in question here—comprises a select list of fundamental rights that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. In deciding whether a right falls into either of these categories, the Court has long asked whether the right is “deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition” and whether it is essential to our Nation’s “scheme of ordered liberty.” Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 3).
Alito explains on verse 22:
In interpreting what is meant by the Fourteenth Amendment’s reference to “liberty,” we must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what that Amendment protects with our own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy. That is why the Court has long been “reluctant” to recognize rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U. S. 115, 125 (1992). “Substantive due process has at times been a treacherous field for this Court,” Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 503 (1977) (plurality opinion), and it has sometimes led the Court to usurp authority that the Constitution entrusts to the people’s elected representatives.
Alito goes on to write (p. 41) that, based upon the “specific practices of states,” abortion did not fall within even the “outer limits” of these so-called substantive rights. Alito makes this important statement then on page 44:
[D]espite the dissent’s professed fidelity to stare decisis, it fails to seriously engage with that important precedent—which it cannot possibly satisfy.
Alito does not reject the concept of substantive rights in the Constitution, but he writes for the majority, especially four Justices in the majority, that Roe failed on that important precedent.
Justice Thomas Concurs
Then Justice Thomas writes in his concurring opinion (p. 118):
As I have previously explained, “substantive due process” is an oxymoron that “lack[s] any basis in the Constitution.” Johnson, 576 U. S., at 607–608 (opinion of THOMAS, J.); see also, e.g., Vaello Madero, 596 U. S., at ___ (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 3) (“[T]ext and history provide little support for modern substantive due process doctrine”).
Furthermore, Thomas writes (p. 118):
Because the Due Process Clause does not secure any substantive rights, it does not secure a right to abortion.
Thomas argues that no substantive due process rights even exist. The various Supreme Courts invented these out of whole cloth.
As a result, Justice Thomas writes (p. 119):
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.
As an example, the Supreme Court argued in Obergefell a substantive due process right of same sex marriage based upon the fourteenth amendment. Thomas concludes (p. 123):
[I]n future cases, we should “follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away.” Carlton, 512 U. S., at 42 (opinion of Scalia, J.).
Apparently substantive rights themselves exist in the constitution in addition to stated rights, but not substantive due process rights.
The Substantive Right to Life in the Constitution
What are substantive rights?
Substantive rights are rights to life, liberty, and property. Do we not agree that the Constitution guarantees the substantive right to life. Should the Supreme Court not have gone further with its ruling? Should it not have argued that abortion is in fact a violation of the right to life found in the Constitution of the United States? That is an argument based upon the Constitution and deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the United States.
I am sure that no state allowed abortion when the fourteenth amendment was ratified. States provided an unborn child a right to life. At the time of Roe, 30 States still prohibited abortion at all stages. Less evidence existed then than does now that life begins at conception. An ultrasound detects a fetal heartbeat at 6 1/2 to 7 weeks.
Some ask why Kavanaugh disappoints Trump? President Trump sees fear in Kavanaugh. The Democrats in the confirmation hearing framed him as a criminal, accusing him of sexual harassment when he was 17 years old. They intimidated him. He famously broke down and cried in that hearing. If Trump sees weakness, a language or decision that reflects that weakness, he questions it, using what I call, Trump-speak. Whatever pressure comes from the other side, he counteracts from his side. I understand it. If you don’t see it, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Kavanaugh wrote the following in his concurring opinion (pp. 125-128):
On the question of abortion, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected representatives to resolve. . . . Because the Constitution is neutral on the issue of abortion, this Court also must be scrupulously neutral. . . . This Court therefore does not possess the authority either to declare a constitutional right to abortion or to declare a constitutional prohibition of abortion.
Is the Constitution not pro-life? Is it really neutral on the matter of life? Does the Constitution not protect life as a substantive right? On the other hand, Kavanaugh sees same sex marriage as a substantive right. He implies that the Constitution is not neutral on same sex marriage, when he writes (p. 133):
First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.
Along the lines of substantive rights in the constitution, consider if Kavanaugh applied his Roe test to Obergefell by writing the following: On the question of same sex marriage, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-sex marriage nor anti-same sex marriage. He doesn’t see a substantive right to life, but he does see a substantive right to same sex marriage. Can this be true? Kavanaugh reads like a lie.
Dobbs was but a first battle in a war for life in this country. In one sense, it is a pretext for the actual war that must occur. We must all start by telling the truth, not only about abortion itself, but about the Dobbs decision. We can all celebrate what it did do, but we also must be realistic about what it did not.
Dobbs didn’t do away with abortion. The United States aborted almost a million babies last year. Everyone of those can still happen if someone wants. This war is far from over.
My Vaccine, Etc. Take
This is my take on the Covid-19 vaccine, etc.
In 2020-21 Brother Ross has written everything on vaccines and conspiracies on his day on Fridays. I wish they weren’t controversial, but I knew they would be and I know they are. I allowed all of them. I’m fine with the position he takes. He’s never explained, but I think I know why he wants to write on this subject so much. I’ve supported him. So, I haven’t written on the subject. I don’t want to write on it. But I’m going to write about it now. I think I should.
I understand why people won’t take the vaccine. There are several reasons for it in no necessary order. As I write these, I’m not looking up anything in research. These are off the top of my head. Each of these, I believe, is a reason.
One, the vaccine isn’t like anything else produced. It’s a new technology. How can we be sure about this particular technology?
Two, the vaccine was rushed through without the usual testing.
Three, the government has been lying from the start. When I say, government, I want you to understand that I don’t mean all of the government, mainly the unelected bureaucracy with cooperation of the media. All things have not been the same as it relates to the government, but the swamp is large.
The government wasn’t honest about China. It wasn’t honest about masks. It wasn’t a pandemic. The fear of a “pandemic” helped botch the 2020 election and made it easier to cheat. With total respect for those who died and those who knew people who died, people died at a lesser rate by definition than a true pandemic. Yet it was called a pandemic. The media has pushed the lies of the government. The government still lies on a daily basis.
The government used the pandemic to shut down and threaten churches. It’s still doing it in countries less free and without a Constitution like ours. The vaccine has been a political hard ball. It’s tossed all over the place to cause political damage in a dishonest way. When people were dying in the last administration, fast balls thrown at the head every minute at the President. Now when it’s spreading like wildfire and this President makes multiple errors, the media is silent. He wears the mask like a chin strap in public, coughs all over people, coughs into his hand, breaks every one of his own rules.
By the way, if you can’t understand why people don’t trust their government and in a big way, then please read Victor David Hansen’s recent column at American Greatness, entitled, “The Truths We Dared Not Speak in 2021.” This government is a clown car, trying to force people to put something in their body that they don’t want, except it’s not a fun clown car but one that is weaving all over the road with two wheels hanging over a cliff. Think about a clown and then think of President Biden and then Jen Psaki. It’s not a difficult reach. Put her hair on his head. It’s difficult to parody, (1) because it is its own parody without changing anything, and (2) it’s a nervous laugh because they are dangerous.
Four, the vaccine has the worst side effects I’ve ever seen. I admit that I haven’t taken many prescription drugs in my lifetime, but these are some weird reactions.
Five, President Biden opposed the vaccine until he became president and now he wants everyone vaccinated. He is willing to mandate it for anyone that he can.
Six, people are getting fired for not getting the vaccine. People are having their positions threatened. Some see themselves as marked people because they aren’t cooperating.
Seven, the vaccine sets a pattern of government control that reminds people of passages in Revelation where the Antichrist takes over. It isn’t the Antichrist and it isn’t the mark of the beast, but the Antichrist won’t allow those to buy or sell without the mark, and the present government has pushed a vaccine passport. When I was in San Francisco, held over there trying to get to a funeral, a coffee shop asked to see my vaccination card or I couldn’t get a coffee there.
This government locked everything down and would monetary fine those who broke their arbitrary, non-representative rules, and then the main executives of the rules broke them themselves with total hypocrisy. They also allowed leftist protestors to break them without interdiction or discouragement. Now they let people illegally into the country, who are breaking their Covid rules. They don’t really care about stopping the disease, not with the conviction of someone who really believed it was serious.
Eight, I’ve thought that a health crisis would be the basis for breaking down the boundaries and distinctions between governments. It was Rahm Emmanuel, Chief of Staff for President Obama, who said, “Don’t let a crisis go to waste.” Some seem to revel in the crisis. It creates great situations to pass a biggest spending bill for all of history.
Nine, the government says the vaccination works and then requires masks and social distancing as if the vaccination doesn’t work.
Ten, Israel does a study saying natural immunity is better than a vaccination and our government gives no equal favor to natural immunity. It is essentially silent on natural immunity. This itself is a sort of lie.
Eleven, politicians by nature make money from Pharmaceutical lobbyists, which seem to be involved. The more vaccinations, the more money to corrupt lobbyists. The cost is spread over everyone who pays taxes. What a boon! The give-away system itself is corrupt. This is a form of corporatism.
Twelve, cheap drugs that could help Covid patients aren’t allowed those drugs. They are safe, legal, and inexpensive, so why aren’t they allowed? Why are they being attacked in the media? Many testify to being helped by them and yet in many cases, the medical community doesn’t have them when they are needed. These are the same people saying to get a vaccine.
Thirteen, the wrong people are putting unreasonable pressure on people to take the vaccine.
Fourteen, other ideas besides the vaccine are not easily accessible. When someone has a criticism, it’s being censored in social media and on the mainstream media. Why is that?
Fifteen, more people look to the government for help, adding just a little bit or even a lot more dependency on big government.
Sixteen, just one more booster, no one more, just a second, you’ll just need one more.
Seventeen, this works at 95%, sorry to tell you now it’s at just 25% efficacy. They really didn’t know how long the efficacy would last. It looks like they’re trying the vaccine out on us.
Eighteen, people aren’t sure if aborted baby materials weren’t used in experimentation to create the vaccine.
I’m going to stop at eighteen. I could write thirty or more. What I wanted you to know was that I understand your concerns. If you didn’t get the vaccine, you’ve got reasons. I think especially cumulatively, people see what I’m writing. They know it. Even if they trust the vaccine, they don’t want to support this.
With this list of eighteen, if you want to get the vaccine, you should be at liberty to get it. I don’t agree with writing that calls it genocide and a death shot. Good people support getting the vaccine. I got the vaccine and a booster. My parents got the vaccine and the booster. I didn’t push the vaccine at all, but if someone asked me, I told them why I got it. No pressure.
I had my reasons for getting the vaccination, that I believe are legitimate reasons for getting it. I’m not ashamed for getting it. It wasn’t so that I could travel, like someone lied. I didn’t need it to travel. I don’t think people should be shamed for getting the vaccination. It’s a liberty issue. Because it is a liberty issue, I believe Brother Thomas can write about it with liberty. It’s obviously not a liberty issue for some. You should think about the principles in his conspiracy series. He cares about scripture more than most people I know.
I thought the reward outweighed the risk. I thought the vaccination was a risk. Not getting the vaccination, I believed, was a greater risk. To me, getting it was a greater reward. It should not be causing division in churches. For sure, it should not be a church discipline issue. I know several unaffiliated Baptist churches where a majority of the people received the vaccination.
When I list of the worst things happening in 2021, I think those on the list should be taken into consideration. With my eighteen reasons people could legitimately use for not getting vaccinated, that doesn’t mean I think the vaccination issue gets into the top five or even the top ten. That doesn’t mean the vaccination issue and others like it aren’t important at all. I’ve never written that. I did not make that point at all. However, if you don’t think my top five were important or even true, be my guest for making the case that there are bigger issues than the five I wrote. Feel free to argue the vaccination into the top five. Do not rehash what has already been written under other posts.
****************
You can comment, but I’ll shut it down if I think it’s uncivil. On this post, I have the right to delete any comment without giving you a reason.
A Test of Faith: Doing What You Know to Be Good Rather Than What Is Merely Permissible
Is what God wants you to do what you want to do? There may be no law that requires you to do what God wants you to do, but doing what He wants is still a test of your faith, that is, a test for whether you truly believe in Him or not.
The Elimination of Practices and Activities Deemed Dispensable By the Truth About Real Gain
You can do certain things. They’re permissible, sure. They’re not wrong per se. Paul argue that’s not how we should choose to do things. We might like them. They might be fun.
Paul could have made money off of his preaching. According to him in 1 Corinthians 9, he even deserved it. Those who preach of the gospel, he said, should live of the gospel. However, he willingly gave up that support for the sake of the gospel. As an evangelist or missionary, taking monetary support for preaching the gospel could diminish the effects of his preaching.
The money Paul could have made was a type of gain. It’s still a well-known type of gain. Gain is an economics term, like “capital gains.” Adam Smith in his classic, Wealth of Nations, begins chapter ten by saying:
The five following are the principal circumstances which, so far as I have been able to observe, make up for a small pecuniary gain in some employments, and counterbalance a great one in others.
Then he names those five principles circumstances and elaborates on them. You see his use of the word “gain.” He uses it 17 times in that chapter. In the next paragraph, he writes:
Honour makes a great part of the reward of all honourable professions. In point of pecuniary gain, all things considered, they are generally under-recompensed, as I shall endeavour to show by and by. Disgrace has the contrary effect. The trade of a butcher is a brutal and an odious business; but it is in most places more profitable than the greater part of common trades. The most detestable of all employments, that of public executioner, is, in proportion to the quantity of work done, better paid than any common trade whatever.
He says that honor is the reward of certain honorouble professions, rather than “pecuniary gain.” “Pecuniary” is “related to or consisting of money.” He implies there are other types of gain, like honor. Honor is a kind of gain, not pecuniary, but one to be chosen over money apparently. The profession brings honor, if it doesn’t bring money.
The Apostle Paul refers to gain again and again in scripture, and this is seen in 1 Corinthians 9 in a section that most label as a section on Christian liberty. I respect that idea that 1 Corinthians 6-10 is about Christian liberty. I don’t mind it, but it is worth looking at it from the perspective of the definition of real gain.
God created man for a relationship with Him. The Lord Jesus said in Matthew 16:26,
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
There’s that word “gain.” The implication here is that someone profits nothing, even if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul. Luke 9:25 says,
For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?
In the King James Version, Paul uses the word “gain” five times. He writes first in 1 Corinthians 9:19,
For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.
Recent Comments