God is Near

God is God
When the springtime has come -
The cherry tree has lots of fruit
And picking it is fun -

God is God
When the cherry tree is bare -
When there's not even one
Little cherry to share -


God is Near
At the start of the day -
When there's lots of hope and light
When the world is okay -

God is Near
When the night is here -
When all the fun is over
And there's lots to fear -


You need God
When you're on top of your game -
You know what you're doing
And you're free from shame -

You need God
When your life is a mess -
You're disliked, you're discouraged
And you have no success -


So wherever you go,
Whether up or way down -
Go hang out with God
And it's okay to frown -

Am I Right? Am I Left?

I'm not ashamed of my flawed thoughts
I post them for all to see-
If anyone sees how they are wrong
Don't hesitate to tell me!

--The Bondage Of The Will--

Welcome to the random ramblings of a random person who likes to ramble about random deep topics!

Just to introduce this type of blog, I would like to say that it is not in a standard format. It's more similar to random ramblings and thoughts, but it's rather fun. I do like to take things on a case by case basis, for no obvious reason. I am not trying to really prove anything here, but only enjoying expressing some of my thoughts about this and that. If you feel like reading the whole thing, then do. If not, then just skip ahead to your favorite definition of free, and only read about that one! So... what is free will? In fact, what does free even mean?

"Freedom is not free"

What does that even mean? Isn't freedom, by definition, free? Obviously, it isn't. The word "free" is used to mean many things.

1. A Free Taco: A taco that costs you nothing
2. Fat-Free: A product that is free from fat; a product that contains no fat
3. Freely Chosen: A choice made without obligation, pressure, or other compulsion
4. Free will: A person is free to control their desires
5. Free will: A person who has the power to control their desires and choices, and also to get whatever they want. IE God is free
6. Free will: A person is free only to choose to follow their desires
7. Free will: A being which can choose between chocolate and vanilla for no obvious reason
8. A free agent: A person or being who determines his own actions, as opposed to having his choices be determined by someone or something else.
9. Free: A person who is not forced to do that which they do not want to do; are not slaves. IE we live in a "free country."
10. Free from: Not forced to do stuff by a certain entity or government. We are free from England, but enslaved to the laws of this country.

__________________________________________________________
Now, some people say that people are free, and some say that people are not free. I believe that people do have free will. Which definition am I using? How much freedom of will do people have? Are people truly slaves of sin? Is this a free country? If I put a gun to your head, are you no longer responsible for your actions?


Case 1: People are free (they cost nothing)
I believe that people are priceless, but that God can redeem people by the priceless blood of Christ. But that's really quite besides the point because people never apply this type of freedom to the will. Unless you argue that we got our will as a free present from God... Who knows...
Verdict: Proposition 1 is false


Case 2: Will-Free (we have no will)
I don't think that anyone could really argue that humans have no will whatsoever. I mean, I will finish writing this blog. Everyone wills and everyone chooses. Some choose to kill others. Maybe it's random and maybe it isn't, but there still is willing going on.

Judges 15:13
"So they spoke to him, saying, 'No, but we will tie you securely and deliver you into their hand; but we will surely not kill you.'"

Verdict: Proposition 2 is false


Case 3: We choose everything freely (All our choices are made without obligation, pressure, or other compulsion)
We do make some choices "freely," without any compulsion. For instance, when I chose to sit down and write this blog, that choice was made "freely" in that sense.

2 Corinthians 8:3
"For I bear witness that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability, they were freely willing"

However, it would be hard to argue that every choice we have is free in that sense, seeing that we have objective evidence that people are robbed at gunpoint or enslaved every day. I think it's safe to say that we have all experienced pressure, compulsion, and obligation to make certain choices at some point in our lives. Some people have even experienced physically being made slaves, which usually involves force of some sort..

Deuteronomy 6:21
"then you shall say to your son: ‘We were slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt, and the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand;"

Verdict: Proposition 3 is false


Case 4: We have free will (We can control our desires)
To a certain extent, we all seem to have some influence over our desires. Sometimes, we may focus on something else that we want, to get our mind off of something we really shouldn't be longing for. Othertimes, we may focus on the downsides of getting what we desire, to convince ourselves to stop wanting it so much. We can choose what to try to focus on, meditate on, and delight in.

Psalm 37:4
"Delight yourself also in the Lord, and He shall give you the desires of your heart."

However, to try to say that we have have complete control over our desires obviously is not true. Just ask the people who have a hard time when they try to quit smoking. They don't want to want cigarrettes anymore, but they still do want them. In the same way, non-believers cannot change their heart or cause themselves to stop desiring sin. The Bible goes as far as calling them slaves to sin, which does not at all imply that they could control their evil desires.

Romans 6:20
"For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness."

Even we, as christians still do not have total control over our desires, but must actively not act according to those bad desires.

1 Peter 2:11
"Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul."

Verdict: Proposition 4 is false


Case 5: We are free in all our desires, actions, and outcomes. (We have the power to will and to do anything)
We all know that God is free in this reguard. God has the power not only to control all of His mind and desires...

Romans 9:14 (ASV)
"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid!"

...but also has the power to do whatever He wants.

Jeremiah 32:27
“Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh. Is there anything too hard for Me?"

It cannot be successfully argued that we either have freedom to control our desires completely (see case 4) or that we are powerful enough to do whatever we want. I may want to fly, but I do not have the power to actually choose to fly. God could. God is the only one with this type of freedom. We do not have that much power.
Verdict: Proposition 5 is false


Case 6: We are free, but only free to try to follow our desires.
Well, given that we are not free to control our desires, this does not seem unlikely. It leaves two logical problems though. First of all, if all free will meant is that we follow our desires, can we still influence our desires? If desire is a little kid, and free will is the blanket he drags behind him, then who or what determines whether a sinner feels like robbing or murdering? Given this definition of free will, randomness can be the only answer to that. It is only because of randomness that one feels like shooting you, and another feels like being an unjust judge instead. It is not a complete description of the will, and therefore this definition is not very helpful at all.

Secondly, this definition also leaves open the possibility of mind-controlled people still counting as having free will. There has been some attempt to create "rat-bots" by attaching mechanisms to the rats which will give them serotonin when triggered - Basically, the humans give the rat a happy feeling in his mind whenever he turns to the direction that the humans want him to. The humans then control the rats behavior. If some sort of more complicated mind-control was invented that would work on humans, then you wouldn't have to force people to give you money against their will. You could just put in their mind the desire to give you all their cash immediately, and then they would "freely" follow that desire. You would causally determine every one of their actions - you could make them go out and murder your enemies. Would that still count as them making free choices? According to this definition of free, yes: they are free because they are freely following their desires. Common sense tells us that people who are being CONTROLLED by someone else are not free. This definition obviously does not cover all aspects of free will or free choices.

Jeremiah 31:30
"But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge."

Verdict: Proposition 6 is an incomplete definition, and not helpful


Case 7: We are free beings who can choose between chocolate and vanilla for no obvious reason
I think a person could argue very that any person can choose between chocolate and vanilla for no obvious reason. Because the decision is not made under pressure or force, it definitely counts as a free decision. But again, that definition is so incomplete that it doesn't really explain much, or help us understand the will any better.

Proverbs 21:2
"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes..."

Verdict: Proposition 7 is an incomplete definition, and not helpful


Case 8: We are free agents: we determines our own choices (they are not externally determined)
No one argues that external stuff does not influence our decisions, because obviously external stuff does influence our decisions all the time.

Genesis 42:1
"When Jacob saw that there was grain in Egypt, Jacob said to his sons, 'Why do you look at one another?'"

However, I think that it is fairly reasonable to say that a choice is only free, by any meaning of the word, if it is determined not by external factors, but by internal choice. For example, if I push the table, I externally determine it's movement. It is not a free agent. If I push Tim so that he falls and breaks the vase - that action was determined by me, and not him, and he cannot be held responsible for the broken vase. To say "responsible" implies that an agent can "respond." A cat, on the other hand, could be said to have free will because it internally determines to try to walk accross the room. I can influence the cat's decision in many ways, but it makes the final choice.

Joshua 24:15
"...choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve"

At different points in life, we may be compelled by this, or enslaved by that, but I think that to say that man is a free agent, a being who always has free will, must always internally determine his or her own choices. A free agent, a cat, may be trapped in a cage, or a free agent mule may be kicked until it moves, but they still have the final word on how to respond to that. A person may be enslaved by desires, or pressured by other people, but as long as his choices are internally determined, I would say that it counts as free. This definition makes sense, and is very practically helpful to descibing and understanding people. You can identify with a slave, but you cannot empathize with an inanimate object. We only can empathize and relate to free agents, rather than robots or zombies.

Proverbs 12:10
"A righteous man regards the life of his animal, But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel."

[Cruelty is equating non-free agents and free agents: "to make an omlet you have to break eggs..."]
Verdict: Proposition 8 seems to fit as an accurate working definition


Case 9: We are free: we are not slaves; we live in a "free country;" we are not compelled to do stuff we don't want to do
How is this country any "freer" than the next one? We can go to church, but we cannot pray in schools. We can grow strawberries, but we cannot build a house on our property in Oregon. We can buy food, but we cannot refuse to recycle. We can drive cars, but we cannot talk on our cell phones while driving. We are compelled to do all sorts of things in this country. The idea of a free country is the idea that what we are forced to do in this country is better than what we would be forced to do in another country. That may be true. Perhaps true freedom is having the better kind of freedom
However, it is not true to say that we are not slaves. We will always be slaves to someone or something. You cannot serve God and mammon. But you also cannot serve nothing.

Romans 6:18, 20
"And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness."
"For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness."

You are slaves to sin, or slaves to righteousness, but you will never not be a slave.
Verdict: Proposition 9 is false


Case 10: We are practically free from some entities, and not free from others.
I think that, given the above sentiments, this follows very logically. We are free from some things, like being under the dominion of sin, but are not free from other things, like being under the dominion of righteous. We are free from the laws of England, but not free from the laws of America. In Christ, we are free from what is harmful to us, and that is a much better type of freedom than being free to sin all we want! True freedom is having the better freedom.
Verdict: Proposition 10 is true

_____________________________________________________________
Most all of these definitions are useful for this and that. I still say "free lunch" and "fat free yogurt" and argue that slaves are not free. Mainly, in this blog, I was only discussing to what extent all humans are free - to try to discuss in what way free will is free.

Round 1: Free Will -VS- Foreknowledge

Now here's a question: how can foreknowledge and free will exist at the same time?

If you know for sure that someone will choose X, than that someone is not free to choose anything but X! How is that free? It obviously cannot be free, since that person had no other choice! On the other hand, if that person chooses Y, then you were wrong about the future, and foreknowledge is reduced to guesswork!



That is the dilemma. I don't claim to have the answer. But, I do have an idea that sounds like a plausible possibility to me. I think that it's quite possible for foreknowledge and free will to co-exist peacefully. How can this be? Before I begin, let me first say this: Foreknowledge is knowledge and is not guesswork, it cannot be wrong. That is a given.

And now: Foreknowledge and FreeWill step into the ring - both look formidable - Who will win this historic battle??

________________________________________________________________________
I Spy the Future:
Now, I'd like to point out that it is possible to know something without causing it. I know that my mom called me several minutes ago. She called me of her own free volition, and I did not cause that. We all understand that. Now suppose I read a book, and then I read it again. I know how the characters are going to respond to each other, but I did not cause them to act in that way. Finally, suppose that I time travel to the future, and find out that in 2050, a guy named Brick Williams, who lives across the country will rob First National Bank. After that, I travel back in time, and continue living my life as usual. I know that Brick will rob that bank. Brick robs the bank. Then I think about it, and realize that even though I knew he would rob that bank, I did not cause him to rob that bank. Knowledge and causality are completely separate.

If a Being could see through time into the future, or if a Being was outside of time, that Being could know everything without causing any of it. Come to think of it, I once had a friend who often had foreboding dreams about the future that came true 100% of the time. One time, she dreamed that I was going to get into a car accident, and then next day, first thing in the morning, I got into a car accident! I don't think I would like to be able to see bad things happen in the future, and then be powerless to stop them from happening... But clearly even if she had knowledge, she did not cause me to be in that accident. Once again, knowledge and causality are completely separate. You cause it, and I know it. Or, I cause it, and you know it.

________________________________________________________________________
Determinism:
Secondly, I'd like to say that you cannot know something for sure if it is truly random. Is there anything truly random, is that sense of the word? However, you can know something that only appears to be random, but actually is determined. For instance, people learn to roll a dice to get the number they want. People write programs to pick a "random" number. There is not a 30% chance that it will rain tonight; no, there are very specific environmental factors that determine for sure whether it will or will not rain, but people don't measure all of those factors exactly. In the same way, it is easy to understand a Being could know the future actions of any being if we think that the actions of the being are determined and not random.

I would put forward that every human action is determined. Every animal's actions are determined also. Even God's actions are determined. But who or what determines all that? Some atheists are determinists and believe that everything is scientifically determined by some past, distance, and inanimate force. Some psychologists believe that a person's environment absolutely determines who that person becomes and what that person chooses to do: that the person is helpful to choose otherwise. Are our lives really determined by science and environment? I would say no. I believe that God determines His own actions. I also believe that animals determine their own actions. I believe that humans also determine their own choices. Every choice is determined. It is easy to understand, then, that a Being could look into the future and see, for sure, what will happen. But if our actions are determined, then how are we free? Because our choices are self-determined, and therefore we have free will and act as a free agent. (See previous note about The Bondage Of The Will) We choose for ourselves what to determine to choose to do. [As a side note - I am not saying that we can determine to do anything. We cannot choose to fly or to save ourselves. I'm only saying that everything that we do choose is determined by us. I determined to write this blog]

________________________________________________________________________
Let me say again that in this blog, I am not trying to prove that the world works this way. I am only trying to say that it could work this way. I am not trying to prove that foreknowledge and free will co-exist, but merely that it is possible that they could both exist and not contradict each other. We could freely determine our own actions, and another Being could, in the past, be able to look into the future and observe (without determining) our determined future actions.

FreeWill and Foreknowledge shake hands, leave the ring, and sit down together as friends...

Be here for Round 2!!!

Round 2: Free Will -VS- Predestination

The idea of predestination is that before any of us existed, God decided what our destinies would be. So, if God chose ahead of time where we would end up eternally, then how do we have any control over that? Even more so, if everyone who believes on Christ is promised eternal life, then are the non-elect unable to believe? How is that freedom? On the other hand, if everyone is able to believe, then would God break His promise to save those who believe? No. Then would He change the pre-determined destinies? That wouldn't be predestination anymore!

Such is the dilemma. So does free will trump predestination? Or does God's predestination trump human free will?

And now: FreeWill stands up again to step into the ring - Predestination then stands up, and we realize that he's about two feet taller... Predestination enters the ring, and the round begins... Have at it boys!!!

__________________________________________________________
Alright, let's start with the fact that predestination is a given. God chooses our destinies. Let us take that at face value. We do not have power or control over our eternal destiny. That has to do with power and not will; we can wish for whatever destiny we want; I'm sure Hilter didn't want to be condemned to hell, but he didn't have the power to enforce that desire. God chooses what our eternal destinies will be: whether heaven or hell.

So far there is no conflict between will and destiny.
One chooses to wave, and God has chosen he goes to hell.
Another chooses to jump, and God has chosen that he goes to heaven.
They both co-exist peacefully.
We determine our choices.
He determines our destiny.
Or conversely:
He determines our destiny.
We determine our choices.
Still no conflict.

Getting in deeper now...
We determine whether to believe on Christ.
[Pause: Perhaps humans by themselves will freely never believe on Christ, just like God freely will never sin. That is not the debate. The debate is, if humans could freely determine to believe, would that conflict with predestination? The question right now is "do humans have free will," but rather "would human free will conflict with God's predestination?]
He determines whether to save those who believe.
Or conversely:
He determines the eternity destiny of those who He specifically knows will determine to believe.
We determine whether to believe on Christ.
Still no conflict.

__________________________________________________________
And now an often-asked question: Wouldn't that mean that we determine our destiny?
Well, for the moment, let's assume that there is a one to one correlation between our free choice to trust Christ as Savior, and our eternal destiny being heaven.
Every time A happens, B happens. That proves correlation. It does not prove causality. A person could say "every time A happens, B happens. Therefore, A causes B!" But that is known as the logical fallacy entitled "post hoc ergo propter hoc." (Seriously - look it up) Generally the fallacy states "After this, therefore because of this," but according to my book, "The Fallacy Detective," "this fallacy is also being commited when someone says that since A and B are seen together, one must have caused the other." So basically, if a person says because predestination happened first, it must have caused the later choice, that person would be using the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Or if a person says that since every time a person believes, they are saved, the believe must have caused the salvation, that person would also have been using the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

The answer to the question is: God determines our destinies in a way that makes Him happy:
If God has promised to save those who believe, it is not that He is miserably tied to a promise. No. Rather, it means that God wants to save those who believe, and that is why He made that commitment. He determined to make that promise. Secondly, He freely determines whether or not to keep that promise. God did not have to dictate this one to one correlation of belief and salvation. He could have been like the big blue guy from "Watchmen:"

"...the world will look up and shout "save us" and I'll whisper 'no'"

__________________________________________________________
God freely chooses who to predestine.
He can choose based on any condition, or lack thereof, that He likes. He could look throughout all of time for those that He feels like predestining. He can see those who will choose to ask Him for help, without causing them to ask Him for help. He can see those who will spit in His face, without causing them to spit in His face. He can determine the fate of each, according to His good pleasure. If He wanted to send villains to heaven, and condemn to hell those who believe in Christ - He could!

To answer the questions put forward at the start:
So, if God chose ahead of time where we would end up eternally, then how do we have any control over that? We do not have control over where we spend eternity.
Even more so, if everyone who believes on Christ is promised eternal life, then are the non-elect unable to believe? The non-elect are not those who are unable to believe, but those who God knows WILL NOT believe.
How is that freedom? It is freedom because they determined their choice.
On the other hand, if everyone is able to believe, then would God break His promise to save those who believe?
God saves those who believe, and the non-elect will never choose to believe. He will not break His promise.
Then would He change the pre-determined destinies?
Why would He change anything after the fact? He knew what would happen before He predestined them the first time!
He will not change what He has predestined.

__________________________________________________________
Let me say again that in this blog, I am not trying to prove that the world works this way.
I am only trying to say that it could work this way. I am not trying to prove that predestination and free will co-exist, but merely that it is possible that they could both exist and not contradict each other. We could freely determine our own actions, and another Being could, be able to look into the future, see what each person will choose and be like, and determine their destinies according to how it pleases Him.

FreeWill and Predestination shake hands, leave the ring, and sit down together as brothers...

Be Here For Round 3!!!

Round 3: Free Will -VS- Sovereignty [The Final Round]

The next question is this: How can God be truly in charge, if wicked men are freely running about killing people as much as their heart desires? If God respects human free will, then aren't men running the planet? What if God wanted a specific event to happen, like the crucifixion , and men freely chose not to do that? Would He give up His plan, and therefore His sovereignty? Or would He take away their free will?


The dilemma has haunted mankind for centuries. So now, does God's sovereignty overshadow man's puny little "free will"? Or does man run around, haphazardly destroying everything, while God helplessly watches?

Sovereignty confidently strides into the ring. FreeWill stands up - and we see that's he's half the size of his opponent. There's no way he can win this one... FreeWill now steps into the ring, and the battle begins! This is the final battle, the "Boss" level!

_______________________________________________________________
"Where does a 1,000 pd Buffalo sleep?" "Anywhere he wants to!"
Let's start with the idea that God gets what He wants. God is God, He is all-powerful, and therefore whatever He wills to happen will happen. Let put a disclaimer on that, though. Suppose you wanted a circular square. No matter how powerful you might be, you would not be able to have that. In the same way, we must allow that if God wants two contradicting things, He may have to choose between them. There is a difference between what a person simply wants, and the complex decision of what that person wants. Simply, I want lots of brownies. But, I also want to be healthy and not weigh too much. I cannot always have both, the one would lead to the lack of the other. So, after I think about it, I choose that I want to be healthy more than I want brownies, and I choose to eat brownies only once in a while. God simply wants a lot of things. He doesn't want people to needlessly kill each other. He doesn't want babies to be "aborted." He wants people to obey Him. We don't see this happening in the world.

Does this mean, practically, that God is not in charge? No. It simply means that He wants something more. Some claim that He wants His own glory more, and decrees sin and punishment to acheive that goal. Others claim that God wants to relate to people, wants them to freely choose, and allows sin to achieve that goal. Either way, God's simple or moral will is entirely valid, but is not seen enacted on this earth because God cannot/doesn't choose a contradiction, and enforces His complex will. Like I do, with brownies...

So, let's suppose that God is in charge, and enforces His complex will. With that said, if God rules this planet, the only way we created beings would have any sort of free will is if God wanted us to have it. So, if God wanted to give man free will for some odd reason, and still wanted to remain in charge, is there a way that that could actually work? If that were the case, it would not be a competition between free will and sovereignty. Rather, it would be because of God's sovereignty that free will exists, and free will would be protected by God's sovereignty.

Oh! That reminds me: God is God. He has the power to do whatever. Some may think that if God let man freely choose anything, He would be less sovereign. No way. He could get sick of us and abandon us altogether and still be God! He could have made the world and just let it run and run and "forgotten about it" if He'd wanted to, and He'd still be God. One does not lose power by not using it.

_______________________________________________________________
Take me to your leader!
Sovereignty often is similar to kingship. A king is sovereign over his kingdom. So what is a kingdom? How can one be king if the subjects have free will?
I would say that a true kingdom must have free-willed subjects, or else it is not a kingdom. I may write characters in a story, and I would control their actions, but I would not be a king but only an author. I subconsciously control the characters in my dreams, but that is not a kingdom: it is only a dream. It is only me interacting with my own mind. I could control a legion of robots, and yet I would not be a king: I would just be the CEO of a factory.

So, if a kingdom has or must have free agents as subjects, then how can the king claim to be in charge? Simple! He has physical power over the people, usually in the form of a militia or something. The subject can freely choose not to pay taxes, and the king, having more power, can choose to have the subject burned at the stake! Other subjects might then decide that although they want to avoid paying taxes, they also don't want to be burned to death, and therefore might freely choose to pay taxes. He's in charge not because he need to control people's minds, but because he has more power than them, and also can get rid of subjects who don't go with his program.

Think of the american lottery. You and I both buy tickets. Maybe you'll win, maybe I'll win, but either way, the government wins. (Because they get like half of it in taxes) In the same way, a person who is good at being in charge is not threatened by free choice. Maybe the subject will do this, or maybe the subject will do that, but either way the king gets an outcome that he likes. The king is pleased when subjects obey, and the king is pleased to administer justice on those that don't.

I also think of the pet rats I used to have: Captain, Tinker Button, and Shadow. I was in charge of them, and they freely chose to run about and do this or that, but I was the boss. I had very simple ways of dealing with them: If they were nice, I let them run around the room; if they bit me, I would put them in their cage. Either way, they did what they liked, and I remained in charge. And if they bit me enough times, I just got rid of them. That's what happened to Shadow... I did not feel at all threatened by their free will. I was in charge. I was bigger, stronger, more intelligent, had cages, and controlled their food supply.

Based on that understanding of kingship, it is not hard to understand that God could be King over subjects who could still choose freely. It is very easy to understand why He has conditions for this or that sprinkled throughout His Word: no matter which condition is the case, He wins!
The awesomeness of conditions:

• If you are male: You have to give me $10,000
• If you are not male: You have to buy me a brand new car, that I like

The only problem here is that because I'm not in charge, I do not have the power to enforce those conditions... But God could!

_______________________________________________________________
Thwarted!
Well that's all good and fine, but what if the Sovereign wants a particular action to happen or not to happen?
That is great question! Let's look through history and find some times when that particular dilemma has come up.

Case 1: There was this one time when God wanted the Jews not to be slaughtered in the time of Esther. He used Esther to prevent the massacre.
What if Esther hadn't wanted to go before the king? Would God's plan have crumbled? Or would He have overridden her will somehow?
Neither.

Esther 4:14 "For if you remain completely silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?”

God would have simply used someone else to deliver the Jews. The last statement holds much significance also. If God from eternity past had known that Esther would have remained silent, perhaps He would have put another girl in her position in the kingdom instead.

God, you must remember, chooses where and when any of us are born. If God knew that Pontius Pilate would not have condemned Jesus to death, why would God allow Pontius to be at that time in history, in that position? He wouldn't. God shuffles history. He chose the line of the Messiah - He chooses who your family is. No matter what man chooses, God's plans happen.

Sometimes, God even directly intervenes, to make sure that His will happens. He does not, however, seem to enforce His will by "secret instigation." I see throughout the Bible and real life that He seems to prefer straight-forward external methods of persuasion. And when I say "persuasion," I mean that God is fine with putting a gun to someone's head... or in this case, putting their head in a fish.


Case 2: Do you remember the time when God wanted Jonah to go to Nineveh, and Jonah didn't want to go?
Did God respect Jonah's choice and just give up on His own plan? God forbid! Did He override Jonah's free will, or give Him some irresistible grace or something? God forbid!
Instead, He simply made a storm, and then had Jonah swallowed by a big fish, who transported Jonah to exactly where God wanted Him. Now Jonah, in the belly of the fish, finally sorta repented and agreed to do what God asked, even though he really didn't have the best attitude about it. I'll come back to that point later. God used eternal methods of persuasion, and let Jonah choose for himself what choices to make.

Also, since God controls physics and stuff, He doesn't always need to persuade people or shuffle history. He could just stop them...

Case 3: Consider missionary biographies as well. I've read several accounts of supernatural protection. God wants the missionary to remain alive, and some people want to kill the missionary.
Does God give up His plan of keeping the missionary alive? Of course not! Does He choose to over-ride human free will, "restrain the evil in their hearts," or give them irresistible grace to do right? Again, no.
The stories always say that He physically retrains them. One time the missionary was guarded by nine angels, who the bad guys could see, and fled from. Another time, an attacker raised his arm, holding a knife, but then was unable to move his arm! God's plans happen. That's right, and if God's plans include man having free will, that's going to happen too!

God is very powerful, shuffles history, (And hey - if He can shuffle history, I'm sure He also do other card tricks with history) throws people into the bellies of animals, and paralyzes them. If He wants something to happen or not happen, He is perfectly capable of making it happen without preventing people from determining their own choices.

_______________________________________________________________
Basically, free will does not automatically beat sovereignty due to the fact that bad things happen on the earth. A Sovereign with a complex, rather than just simple, will would allow things He did not want to get something that He wants more. Secondly, free will only can exist if the Sovereign wants it to exist. A King does not lose kingship because His subjects freely choose, but remains in power because He has more power. Finally, if a Sovereign can shuffle time and space, drop pianos on people's head, or break the laws of physics, He can have anything that He wants to happen happen without any need to override free will.

Again, let me say that in this blog, I am not trying to prove that the world actually does work this way. I am only saying that it could quite possibly operate this way. Perhaps sovereignty and free will do not co-exist. However, it is very possible that a Sovereign could freely and powerfully reign over free subjects and still remain in control without taking away free will that He wanted them to have.

Sovereignty and FreeWill leave the ring and sit down side by side together.

And so, in the end, the lion has lain next to the lamb. The lion does not cease to be a lion: it does not cease to have teeth and be dangerous. But it freely lets the helpless lamb lay safely and peacefully next to him.

[Sovereignty is the lion]

Why does it matter if people have free will?

Many times, as soon as the words "free will" leave my mouth, people assume that I'm trying to say that people can choose God. I believe that that is an entirely separate issue. Whether or not man can ask God for help is like arguing whether or not man can fly. Maybe he can and maybe he can't, but either way, he remains free to choice whatever. I can go outside and jump off my roof because I believe I can fly. I cannot, of course, but that is separate from my power to will.

The idea of free will (the 8th definition) goes a lot deeper than that. When I say free will, once again I am not speaking of the idea that we are not compelled to do things, or of the idea that we cannot be slaves. Many people are physically slaves. The idea of "free will" is merely the idea of "will" or of life. The concept of being a "free agent" is the concept of being separate from another, and responsible for one's own actions. This is very key to the concepts of existence, life, and relating.

[Boundaries: This is me, that is you]

Once again, spiritually we are all either slaves of sin or slaves of righteousness. God Himself, who is of all Beings most free, "cannot lie." Please understand that when I say "free will," I am not used definitions 1-7 or 9-10 from my other blog. When I say that people have free will, I am saying that they are responsible for their own choices and are separate from other beings.

Free agent - Originally used to describe a person subject to the philosophic concept of free will (as opposed to determinism), this expression was first recorded in 1662. (Dictionary.com)

Even outside of christianity, this topic comes up. Men commit crimes, and then this or that party exclaims that it was due to chemical imbalances, or that their childhood determined it. They had no other choice! That is the concept of "determinism," or more accurately, "other-determinism." On the other hand, we have the idea that although those factors influenced the person, the person made that choice to commit the crime, having other options he could have chosen instead. That is the concept of "self-determinism," or by the 8th definition, "free will."

__________________________________________________________
We are separate beings, each one of us alive and responsible.

What counts as alive?
People? Aliens? Plants? Animals? I would say that plants are alive, but not in the same way as people or animals are. The difference is that people and animals are aware of self, and make choices (determine their choices.) God, though perhaps a "slave to righteousness," is aware of Himself and is a "free agent" because He determines His own choices. In that sense, God has free will and is truly alive. On the other hand, a book is not alive. It is not aware of itself, and it's actions are determined not by itself, but by the creatures who pick it up and put it down. Does this matter? Yes. It is wrong to abuse a dog. It is not wrong to burn a log. We relate to other free agents. We do not relate to a computer, whose every choice is determined by someone else.

What is responsibility?
Only "free agents" hold any responsibility inasmuch as they actually determine the way things happen. I cannot blame the vase for falling and breaking: it had no choice. I can blame my little brother who determined to push it. If something cannot respond in one way or a different way, it cannot have responsibility. Adam and Eve blamed the influence of other agents, but were both held responsible for their own self-determined actions. Though influenced, a free agent determines his own choice and is held responsible for it. We are not held responsible for that which we cannot determine. I am not held responsible for hurricane Katrina. I did not determine that it would happen. This is why, in court, lawyers tried to prove that their client's choices were determined by an outside forces: circumstances or chemicals, because if the client's choice was not self-determined, the client cannot be held truly responsible for it.

What does separateness have to do with it?
Some are an extension of another. Right now, the keys are acting as an extension of me. Their actions are being determined by me, and therefore I can write this blog as I want to write it, without the keys choosing random to insert random words here and there. I am responsible for what this blog says, even though it was typed up by the keys. What does this have to do with anything? If my choices were not determined by me, I would merely be the extension of whoever is determining them. For example, I had a dream the other night, and one guy in my dream was untrustworthy and unkind to me. Can I hold him responsible for that? No, because he is not a free agent who determined his own actions. I subconsciously determined his actions. He is merely an extension of my own mind. If I write a program, and the robot goes off and does what I programmed it to do, it is not a free agent and did not determine it's own action. It would be an extension of me, and if I programmed it to sabotage something, I would be the one to get in trouble. We are separate beings, and not an extension of one another because we are free agents who determine our own action. If God, or Fate, causally determined our every action, we would not be separate beings, but only the extension of His mind.

__________________________________________________________
So that is why the idea of will, or free will is important.
It has to do with the core of existence as a separate being, with loving other people as separate beings, forgiving those who determined to act against you, or apologizing for what you determined to do. It has to do with the fact that breaking eggs to make an omelet is fine, but beating up other people is not. It has to do with why you can punish a kid for lying, or why you can justly condemn a murderer to death. Without personal responsibility, without the idea that we are responsible for what we ourselves determine to choose, none of that would be right, just, or correct. This is the foundation one must build off of to say that man exists separate from God. This is the foundation one must build off to say that man is responsible for biting into that forbidden fruit. This is the foundation one must build off to say that man or beast is truly a living being.

[Separateness: There is a God. You are not Him.]