Predestination III

The self-proclaimed Christian *Free Will* crowd do not have a scriptural argument to support their belief in *Free Will.*  There are more verses that support determinism than *Free Will.*  Most of their arguments are of a philosophical nature, which they try to dress in theology.  We could call this *transtheology,* I suppose.  Their #1 *proof* for *Free Will* is their opinion.  Their human opinion.  Their very intellectually limited human opinion.  What is this opinion?

Their Opinion: God created humans with free will so they could freely choose to love Him and do good. Forced love or obedience would be meaningless.

There is nothing in the Bible to support this.  Not a single verse.  The only verses which offer any insight as to why God created is that He did it for His pleasure and His glory (Revelation 4:11 & Isaiah 43:7).

That God created because He wants people to *love* Him is not only not supported by scripture, it's also extremely childish.  And insulting to God.  As if God were an incel who couldn't find a date for the prom, so He created one.

It's also an extremely weak philosophical argument.  If God truly wanted a creation that would freely love Him, He already had it before He created human beings.  Angels.  Why is He repeating Himself with human beings?  Was He bored with the Angels?  Angels are believed by the *Free Will* crowd to have had *Free Will.*  From the Bible record, it appears some angels love and worship God, while some rebelled.  The same pattern as humans.  

In any event, both humans and angels are lesser beings than God, so the idea that God created because He wanted a creation that would *freely* love Him would only make sense if He created an equal being.  How can a weaker creation *freely* love such a more powerful being?  Human beings reject this concept in their own relationships (and write laws against it).  A mentally disadvantaged person is viewed as not capable of consent in such a relationship.  

As part of this juvenile proof of *Free Will,* the Free Willers assert that without *Free Will,* human beings would be *just* robots, as if it is self-evident this would be a lesser or worse condition. But this is FAR from self-evident.  I think I am a robot, and I am perfectly fine with it.  What would these *Free Willers* do if they found out in the life to come that, no, they didn't have *Free Will,* that they were, in fact, robots?  Would that invalidate whatever affection they did or did not have for their life?  Are they going to be angry? Shall the pot say to the potter, 'Why have you made me thus?

 

Here is a greater problem for the *Free Will* crowd: Even if they themselves have *Free Will,* they cannot deny that at many points in human history God clearly over-rode *Free Will.*  Jonah, Moses, Elisha, David, Paul, for example, did not choose their path, God stepped in and chose for them.

A more interesting and more compelling argument against *Free Will* is the extraordinary case of Judas, the most pathetic of all human beings.  The lamentable fate of Judas is most instructive in the *Free Will* discussion, because even the most ardent supporters of *Free Will* have to admit that Judas, at best, had a limited *Free Will.*

The gospel of Luke teaches that before Judas betrayed Jesus:

Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.

There is no need to try to calculate how much blame to assign Judas and how much blame to assign Satan for Judas' betrayal of Christ.  All we need to know is Satan entered Judas, and we can therefore reasonably conclude Satan had some influence on Judas.  It would be unreasonable to say Satan entered Judas without consequence.  So it is most reasonable to conclude Judas' *Free Will* was limited, to whatever degree.

Why is this important?  An argument most *Free Willers* never address is this:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Scripture makes abundantly clear, with plentiful examples, not just in the case of Judas, but for every person, that, as the scripture above indicates, all humans are subject to supernatural forces that they are rarely aware of. 

Is *Free Will* really free if we are pushed to a decision?  It's like the pick a card, any card magic trick shown in the video above.    

The *Free Will* crowd would have to deny the Bible's clear teaching of supernatural forces acting in the world to assert *Free Will.*

There are decisions we think we make of our own *Free Will* that have been influenced by supernatural forces (some positive, some negative).  If we deny this, we deny scripture.

Sorry, limited *Free Will* is not *Free Will.*

I have a theory why *Free Willers* are so desperate to hold this view, even though it clearly contradicts scripture.  *Free Willers* are embarrassed for God.  They want to do God a favor by excusing Him of the evil in the world.  This is another sign of the childishness, the immaturity of the *Free Willers.*

The *Free Willers* want to preach to the infidels that the evil in the world is the result of the bad *Free Will* choices of human beings.  *Free Willers* are terrified when the infidel asks if there is a God, why does He allow evil?  The *Free Willers* apologize for God!  Shameful!

We have shown the most wicked act in human history, Judas' betrayal of Jesus, could not have been committed from pure *Free Will.*  The best answer from scripture we can give to the infidel's question if there is a God, why does He allow evil, is to simply state it is part of His plan.  We don't have the authority or knowledge to say anything more.  Let us not be like *Free Willers* and be afraid to provide an answer an infidel would object to.  Let us not apologize for God's plan, and make God a victim of *Free Will* in the eye of the infidel.

Predestination II

I understand why most people believe they have *Free Will.*  I have spent most of my life thinking about what I should do, what decision I should make.  It certainly is an authentic replica.  As I am thinking about the choice I must make, I never have the conviction it is not me making the choice, that I am just following some script or program.  It genuinely feels like I am deciding.

But that is not *Free Will.*

I know we have no *Free Will* because I am me.  I am always me.

The moment the sperm rapes the egg. . .no. . .THAT sperm WILL rape THAT egg and I will be.  And I will always be.  I am eternally determined.  

No amount of *choices* can ever alter me.

No person is the person they want to be.  Every person has something about themselves they do not like.  The more honest a person is, the less they like themselves.

If we truly had *Free Will,* we could change ourselves. It should not be necessary to provide a specific example.  We can all look at our own lives, every person is aware of at least some of their defects, some people have even cried about themselves, wishing they were different, but there was and is not a single thing in their power to change themselves.  We have a mind that imagines it is free, but it has no control over the machine that houses it.  The mind cannot grasp that is a creation.

The mind thinks it is free, but everywhere it is in chains.

No honest person says they are the person they want to be.  

We can present it this way: if we had genuine *Free Will,* then we are exactly the person we want to be.  

Every person, in some area of their being, has despaired of themselves.  They have wanted to change some aspect of themselves.  But no matter the energy they expend in change, they run up against the impenetrable of wall of creation.  They were created, they cannot change their mold.

The Apostle Paul frames the dilemma of *Free Will* this way:

For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.  If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Paul concludes our lack of *Free Will* is sin.  If he is correct, it is possible Adam and Eve had (and were the only people ever to have) *Free Will.*  I'd have to think about it (or imagine I am thinking about it) before I decide what I think (or become aware of what I am to think), but it could be when Adam and Eve, of their *Free Will,* ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they instantly lost *Free Will,* they cemented their own fate (and the fate of all who followed).  They walled themselves into sin. . .and death.  Certainly some change instantly occurred, because their perception of themselves changed instantly (Genesis 3:7).  As I said, I need to at least imagine to think about it before I am made aware of what my conclusion will be.

At any rate, whether Adam and Eve had *Free Will* doesn't change our state.  We don't have *Free Will.*  We cannot change who we are. 

Predestination

Predestination: a theological belief central to Reformed theology, especially as developed by John Calvin in the 16th century. It deals with God's eternal plan for the salvation (or damnation) of individuals.  Predestination in Calvinism means that God has eternally chosen before the creation of the earth (or "predestined") some people to be saved (the elect) and others to be damned (the reprobate) — not based on any foreseen merit or decision on their part, but solely according to His will and purpose.

Most American self-proclaimed Christians reject predestination, consciously or unconsciously.  They believe in some degree of *Free Will,* that they have the ability, of themselves, to accept or reject God's plan of salvation (which is accomplished through the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ).

My Two Cents: 

Disclaimer: I wouldn't believe anybody who claims they can give you a blueprint for the salvation of the human soul.  

To grossly simplify Christian salvation, if we believe in *Free Will,* a person must first be presented the gospel of Jesus, and then decide to *accept* it or *believe* it or have *faith* in it.

Well, if we believe in *Free Will,* this means Almighty God can easily be defeated by the little man.  The Almighty Creator, in His Inestimable Wisdom, has created a plan for the eternal salvation of His crowning creation in which the little man can simply consider for a brief moment then say nah, that's not for me. The Almighty Creator is reduced to a humble beggar going door-to-door asking whoever answers His knock will you accept Me?

That's the *Free Will* position.  You, me, any stumblebum on the street can tell God to go kick rocks, and God has to accept it. 

What about Hell?  Isn't the threat of Hell the club in door-knocker God's hand which coerces our *Free Will?*  No.  Nobody who tells God to take a hike believes their decision will result in them being sent to an eternal torment in Hell.  So Hell has no place in the *Free Will* discussion.

Those who believe of their own *Free Will* that they have rejected the Christian plan of salvation may find out later there is an eternal consequence for the exercising of their *Free Will,* but by then it will be too late.  There would be no chance to reconsider the decision to reject God based on the newfound evidence of Hell.

Why would somebody of their *Free Will* accept God's plan of salvation?  Because upon hearing God's plan, of hearing of Jesus' atoning work, they, out of their own wisdom, decide God's plan is worthy of them.  Then the Almighty Creator rejoices He has won the little man's approval.

Both these options seem insulting to the notion of an Almighty Creator God.

But even if we were to accept this insult to God, we are still left with one argument against *Free Will.*  Whether the little man accepts or rejects the Christian plan of salvation is entirely dependent upon the working of his brain, a machine which he did not create.  It was either given to the little man by God, or arose by accident.  Either way, the instrument of his *Free Will* is an entirely external construction.  That cannot be argued against.  

I can no more tell you why or why not I accept the Christian plan of salvation any more than I can tell you why or why not I like strawberry ice cream.

It's probably obvious I am in the Calvinist camp.  How it all works, the mechanics of it, I don't know.  I'd have to be God to lay out the exact blue print.  But I am smart enough to know I am dumber than God, and that IF I am saved, it is thoroughly through His design, and not my *Free Will* decision to validate His design.

What is more interesting to me is the position of the self-proclaimed Christian *Free Will* crowd.  They will reject predestination, not primarily on scriptural grounds (because there are more scriptures that support predestination than promote *Free Will*) but on philosophic ideas which are based on some notion of a *loving and just* God.  Their argument is that a *loving and just* God would not create people who have no opportunity for salvation, who are predestined to spend eternity in Hell.

On the face of it, these *Free Willers* seem to be quite generous to God.  They bestow upon Him their laurels of Love and Justice.  He's too nice to create anything for the sole purpose of eternal torment.

But I find in their slaps on the back of God a hidden vanity.  They desire to claim some part in their own salvation.  However much they will claim salvation is of grace, a gift of God, a token of God's mercy, they will ultimately reject scripture:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.

They just cannot choke down their own supposed *Free Will,* which is their fancy term for their own vanity.  For the *Free Will* crowd deny the scripture which says the gift of salvation is a true gift, a gift given by God, a gift which they had no part of, they did nothing to earn.  By insisting on their *Free Will* acceptance, they override God's ability to give a gift.  God cannot give them a gift they do not accept, a gift they do not intellectually approve of.  The determining factor in salvation is their judgment of God's gift.  This is the height of vanity.  In this, they resemble Lucifer:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

We have no *Free Will.*  We have no power to say no to God.  Whether our destiny is the New Jerusalem or the Lake of Fire, it's not in our power to determine.  

The *Free Will* crowd try to flatter God as 'loving and just' to claim credit for their own salvation!  They dare to define God???

It's not for little man to determine God's love or justice.

As for my own personal thinking, which is what I was given, I see God as an Author who has written a beautiful, harrowing story in which we all have an assigned role.  Am I saved or damned?  You decide.  I don't need to.

David Versus Trump

The Houthis defeat of the American Navy in the Red Sea, which forced US President Donald Trump to sign a cease-fire agreement excluding the state of Israel, has caused the Zionists and Christian-Zionists their most anxiety since Hezbollah defeated Israel in 2006.  

The Zionists and Christian-Zionists are now afraid Trump will abandon Israel at the next sign his Israel First agenda would damage his Presidency, by which we mean damage his image.

Trump agreed to a cease-fire with the Houthis because it was apparent had he not withdrawn the Navy from the Red Sea the Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier was going to be sunk, an embarrassment Trump could not tolerate.

We know the Zionists and Christian-Zionists lust for war against Iran.  Given the difficulties of the American military in the Red Sea, we can conclude Trump is now hesitant to lead a joint US-Israel attack on Iran.  If the pitiful Houthis can nearly sink an aircraft carrier, what would a substantially stronger Iran be able to do to the American military?  Surely the campaign would not be the walk in the park his Zionist and Christian-Zionist led him to believe.

Given Trump's new hesitancy to war against Iran, we must assume the Zionists and Christian-Zionists will manufacture conditions to pressure Trump into agreeing with Israel's demand for war.  

How would the Zionists and Christian-Zionists manufacture such conditions?  Any number of *false flag operations* could be used, from *terrorist attacks* to *assassination attempts.*  Perhaps even simple blackmail, the threat to reveal video evidence of Trump's Epstein mischief.  In any event, *something will happen* with the next week or so to force Trump back into the Zionist and Christian-Zionist war saddle.

[Let us not leave off without congratulating and remarking upon the Houthis astonishing victory over the American Navy.  These small and impoverished people defeated the greatest and richest military force in human history, truly a victory for the Houthis of David vs Goliath proportions.]

Simple Explanation For The Distress Of Contemporary Life

Inverse to the universe, our world is contracting. This is a little understood factor in the emergence of the new manias and neuroses in our current age.

Thousands of years ago, if some tribes warred, nobody outside of the local region knew about it.  If primitives in Asia slaughtered each other, Aboriginals in Australia knew nothing about it.  

On the human timeline, most of the human beings who have ever lived knew nothing about the doings of other humans more than a hundred miles from them.

To a tribesman in the Middle East, Australia was as unknown as the dark side of the moon.  The world was huge.  The earth was flat.  Nobody even tried to map this colossal rock until 2500 years ago.

In a mammoth world, the small human being knew his locality.  Generations lived and died relatively monotonously, living by quickly learned customs and acquiring food, clothing and housing by simple agricultural and hunting techniques and rudimentary construction.  Children weren't separated from parents eight or more hours a day, grandparents weren't left alone to die in mud huts hours from their home locality, herb and mushroom addicts didn't lay like naked zombies in front of decent spirit worshipers' teepees. Adolescent girls didn't vomit up their dates and honey because they didn't look like the girl drawn on the cave wall.

But over the centuries the world got smaller and smaller.  White traders introduced opium to yellow people.  That sort of thing.

In our current age, everybody knows everything about everybody everywhere.  The entire non-flat world has been shrunk to the size of the smartphone screen.  Unprecedented knowledge compacted, centuries of wisdom and madness condensed and transformed into electrical charges, magnetic states, optical charges.  

What is the problem with our current selves?  As the universe expands and our world contracts and our knowledge increases, our psychospace has remained the same size.  The hardware of our brains is the same as was packed into cave dwellers, but the software has increased beyond the hardware's capacity.  

Our ancestors had simple operating systems that didn't overheat their brain hardware.  Our brains are overheated, resulting in thermal throttling, system crashes, component damage—what we call manias, neuroses, addictions.  

Ultimately this all leads to shortened lifespans.  As was foretold by the Creator:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. . .

Don't You Want Me

I don't care what any motherfucker says, this is the greatest pop song of All-Time.  It's the most truthful depiction of human relationships ever set to a synthesizer.

Through catchy melodies and dramatic lyrics, former lovers go back and forth, giving their histories of their dead relationship.  

All human relationships are unequal.  Sometimes one partner desires the other more than he or she is desired, sometimes there is a back-and-forth, but it is never equal. And the one who desires the other more than is desired is always in danger of insanity.  Obsession can develop, and obsession can lead to violence.

Look at these lyrics:

The one who desires the other more than he or she is desired:

You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar
When I met you
I picked you out, I shook up and turned you around
Turned you into someone new
Now five years later on, you've got the world at your feet
Success has been so easy for you
But don't forget, it's me who put you where you are now
And I can put you back down too
Don't, don't you want me?
You know I can't believe it when I hear that you won't see me
Don't, don't you want me?
You know I don't believe you
When you say that you don't need me
It's much too late to find
You think you've changed your mind
You'd better change it back, or we will both be sorry

The pain of being the less desired one courses through each lyric, and it ends with a threat.

The who is more desired:

I was working as a waitress in a cocktail bar
That much is true
But even then, I knew I'd find a much better place
Either with or without you
The five years we have had have been such good times
I still love you
But now, I think it's time I live my life on my own
I guess it's just what I must do

Dismissive of the other, questions their grasp on reality, shatters them with the awful truth: I can live without you.

I can live without you: this is the ticking time bomb of every human relationship which the more desired partner can detonate at any time, though given the sanity of the partner who desires more, the bomb can also be a suicide bomb for the one who is more desired.

This tension between control and autonomy in human relationships is captured perfectly in this miraculous pop song, and gives it an emotional depth that belies its upbeat sound, allowing it to resonate with listeners on multiple levels. It also subtly reflected the changing gender dynamics of the time, adding a layer of social commentary.

Don't You Want Me: Pop Masterpiece.

Are Ye Not Much Better Than They?

Matthew 6:26: Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

Instead of trying to make sense of this, which is not possible, I feel foolish for a lifetime of petty complaints.  And yet I know in a matter of a few hours (or less), I will feel put upon, again.  

Misery has no meaning beyond the individual experiencing it.