… just as He chose
us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy
and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us
to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good
pleasure of His will … (Ephesians 1:4-5 NKJV)
If one were to envision a “Judeo-Christian Church,” one should begin with the issue of Monotheism and how Jesus fits into monotheism (entelechially), but I have already discussed those matters in my blogposts: Excessive Righteousness 2: Monotheism and (my more recent post) Can Jews Accept Jesus? Of secondary importance to the question “Who is God (and Jesus)?” is the question “Who is man?” Is man, analogically, a virtual robot, pre-programmed by God to do whatever God predestines him to do? Calvinist theology seems to answer that question in the affirmative. In its doctrines of “Unconditional Election” and “Irresistible Grace” (The U and the I in TULIP theology) Calvinism affirms that the Elect are chosen by God without respect to any free will on their part and that those so-chosen are helpless to resist such election. Furthermore, Calvinism’s doctrine of Total Depravity (the T in TULIP) affirms that humans have no capability of choosing Good and God on their own.
Nevertheless, Calvinist theology is
neither inspired nor inerrant. Although the New Testament certainly discusses
“foreknowledge” and “predestination,” as in the Ephesians passage cited at the
first of this post, such passages are better interpreted in light of the
concept of entelechy. The New Testament contradicts the three TULIP doctrines
mentioned in several locations (for example):
·
2 Peter 3:9 (NKJV): The
Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count
slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any
should perish but that all should come to repentance.
·
John 6:40 (NKJV): And this is the will of
Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may
have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
·
Romans 1:16 (NKJV): For I
am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to
salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the
Greek.
It sounds to me like it is God’s Will that EVERYONE
believes, repents, and has everlasting life—not just Calvinists or a few whom God
has hand-picked to be saved before the world began. Furthermore, passages exist
that might suggest that man is “inclined” to behave wickedly, such as:
·
Romans 3:23 (NKJV): for all
have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
·
Genesis 8:21 (NKJV): Then
the Lord said in His heart, “… the imagination of man’s heart is evil
from his youth.”
Jews certainly would not dispute the assertion that
humans possess an inclination toward wickedness. The Hebrew word translated
“imagination” (above) in Genesis 8:21 is yetzer. As I commented in my
post Excessive Righteousness 4: Cardiac Commitment (Quid Pro No!),
“Jesus uses the term ‘heart’ to signify the center of our decision-making processes. In Genesis 6:5, God saw that the ‘intent (yetzer)’ of man’s ‘heart (levav)’ was ‘evil (ra‘)’ all of the time. Jews teach that the center of a human being’s decision-making processes (i.e., his ‘heart [levav]’) has a ‘good inclination (yetzer ha-tov)’ and an ‘evil inclination (yetzer ha- ra‘).’ These two inclinations at conflict in our hearts … sprang, perhaps, from when Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of ‘Good (ha-tov)’ and ‘Evil (ha- ra‘)’.”
A conflict, therefore, exists between
Judaistic and Calvinistic anthropological theology regarding man’s total
depravity. Although I have attended a Calvinistic church for more than a
decade, at which the “pastor” has repeatedly cited the entire litany of
Calvinist scholars (most of whom he knows personally) and their arguments on
the issues of TULIP, I remain unpersuaded by them. Arminians, certainly,
dispute the views of Calvinists. The Jews have the more correct anthropological
theology, biblically. Even Cain, who became deadly jealous of his brother Abel,
was told by God that he had the power to “rule over” the sinful inclination of
his heart: “So the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why
are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you
not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its
desire is for you, but you should rule over it.’” (Genesis
4:6-7 NKJV).
If Cain (after the Fall) had the capacity (even though
he did not exercise it) to “rule over” sin, assertions that man is totally
depraved are erroneous. Man (although having powerful evil inclinations) also
has free will and can “rule over” his own evil inclinations, if he chooses to.
There are some exceptions, however, to the principle of the free will of
humans—even in Jewish theology:
1. Do
Children Have Free Will?
Not sufficiently. Once, my 4-year-old grandchild was throwing a tantrum. I demanded sternly: “Stop that!” The response: “I can’t.” There may have been some truth to that response. As I commented in my post Angels & Demons 7: Can Animals, Children, or Angels SIN?,
[A]ccording to official Jewish teachings—for the same
reason animals cannot sin. Children do not possess the YETZER HA-TOV, according
to the Jewish Mishnah, until they reach the age of 12 or 13 (12 for girls, 13
for boys). Prior to that age, they possess only the YETZER HA-RA. They—like
animals—are essentially selfish. This is why at age 13, Jewish boys are given a
BAR MITZVAH (literally: “son of the commandment”). Girls, at the age of 12,
have a BAT MITZVAH (“daughter of the commandment”). They are not even expected
to be able to live according to the Commandments until that age. They are
considered sinless, even though they are (like animals) essentially selfish.
Hence, one could say that children do not have free
will; their behaviors are determined by their YETZER HA-RA. Contrarily, one
might argue that children often do nice things for others. Even so, those “nice
things” are often explained by the Santa Claus entelechy. Being nice instead of
naughty earns the child a reward from Santa (or whoever else is in a position
to offer the reward). Such behavior is still selfishly-motivated despite the
fact that it appears to be altruistic. Your dog might bring you your slippers,
but he probably expects a treat or a pat on the head, in return. (Likewise, for
children.) Even the avoidance of punishment may be sufficient motivation to
produce behavior that appears to be self-less, but is essentially still
selfish. Continuing the dog analogy, I am trying here to “throw a bone” to
those who argue that children (and dogs) can behave altruistically, selflessly.
Consider: if you never praised or rewarded self-less-appearing behavior on the
part of your child (or dog), would they, nevertheless, persist in the good
behavior?
2. Do
the Mentally Handicapped Have Free Will?
Not according to Jewish teaching. I commented in my post Excessive Righteousness 2: Monotheism: “Nevertheless, [the Jews in the time of the New Testament] still believed that God could speak to humans through the occasional words of children and the mentally handicapped (indelicately called ‘fools’ by the Jews). This was still the Holy Spirit operating.”
The assumption is that, if children are considered sinless (having only the YETZER HA-RA), the mentally handicapped should qualify as sinless (and, therefore, like children, be fit conduits for delivering messages from God) since their good inclination is not fully functional. Jesus may be referring to the “sinless” phenomenon when He deals with the Pharisees in John 9:41 (NKJV): “Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, “We see.” Therefore, your sin remains.’” This teaching appears to contradict Leviticus 5:17 (NKJV) somewhat: “If a person sins, and commits any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD, though he does not know it, yet he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity.” I believe that the best explanation of this seeming contradiction is that “blindness” is a metaphor for being mentally handicapped. If the Pharisees were mentally handicapped, they would have no sin, but since they say “We see,” their sin remains.
3. What
About Those Whose Mental State is Altered by Drugs/Alcohol?
Unless they were administered the drug/s against their will, there does not appear to be a carve-out for drug-altered mental states. Admittedly, individuals under the influence are frequently not entirely in control of their actions. One might argue that they, therefore, do not at that time have free will. Women who become inebriated at a bar may engage in sexual activity that they might otherwise have resisted. (Of course, if they were the victims of deceptive drugging by men who subsequently raped them, they are considered innocent victims. See Deuteronomy 22:25-27.) Men (and women) who become inebriated or high might engage in spouse and child abuse or even murder.
In a very sad recent event, Rob Reiner’s son Nick (who had a history of substance abuse) allegedly stabbed both of his parents to death. Studies (such as the one at Yale Behind the Smoke: Unmasking the Link Between Cannabis and Schizophrenia | Yale School of Medicine) have indicated that marijuana use contributes to psychotic behavior and may even be a factor in the recent rash of mass shootings. Are those who kill others by driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs innocent because they could not control themselves after imbibing? The Greek word φαρμακεία/pharmakeia (which is transliterated “pharmacy”) means simply the use of drugs. Since drugs were/are used in witchcraft and sorcery, the term took on those secondary meanings. Galatians 5:19-22 lists φαρμακεία and drunkenness among the works of the flesh (along with adultery, fornication, murder, etc.) and states that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Revelation 9:21 lists φαρμάκων (from the same root) alongside murder and sexual immorality, which required (but lacked) repentance. If one is capable of repenting from φαρμάκων, free will (regarding its use) is implied. Revelation 18:23 states that φαρμακεία deceives (though, in this instance, it has the connotation of drug-induced sorcery). Revelation 21:8 and 22:14 lists murderers, fornicators, and drug users (φάρμακοι) among those “outside the” New Jerusalem whose punishment is the Lake of Fire.
There is no indication that God views drug-or-alcohol
impaired individuals to be absent free will. Rather, they exercise their free
will in choosing to imbibe, inhale, shoot-up, etc. It is that sinful exercise
of their free will that condemns them to the Lake of Fire—not inheriting the
kingdom of Heaven.
4. What
About the Demon-Possessed?
If the modern-day Catholic and Evangelical Christian doctrine of demon-possession were actually correct, one might argue that these demon-possessed individuals do not themselves enjoy free-will. Rather, following such reasoning, one might conclude that the wills of the so-called possessed have been confiscated by wicked spiritual entities. However, I have insistently argued that such a view of what certain Gospel writers have termed “demon-possessed” is totally erroneous. It effectively provides an excuse for bad behavior and renders the individual diagnosed as demon-possessed personally innocent of his or her actions—the responsibility for which actions resides solely with the wicked spiritual entity. Some Evangelical Christians have suggested that the killer of Charlie Kirk was demon-possessed. I disagree. At least, I do not agree in the way they mean.
Repeating my teaching on the subject of
demons, however, I frequently point
out that both the Apostle Paul and John the author of Revelation teach that
demons do not exist as actual entities. They are simply falsehoods that people
believe. In I Corinthians, Paul makes “idols” and “demons” synonymous
and teaches that “idols” are “not anything,” that no idol really exists; there
is no God but one. John in Revelation
agrees that demons and idols are not able to see, hear, nor walk. Demons are not found at all in the Old
Testament or in John’s Gospel. Where the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and
Luke) do mention them, they appear to be something like psychosomatic
illnesses. The possessed believe they have a malady, but there is no physical
proof of illness. For example, there is never an account of having a demon of
fever because a fever is proof of an actual illness. In the same way
that I suggest that transgenders are affected by “demons” (they believe falsely
that they are members of the opposite sex), the false belief takes hold of
them. Since the term “demon” is so misunderstood, these days, I refer to this
problem not as demon-possession, but as being the product of psychotic
entelechy. As an example of psychotic entelechy, Pharaoh believed that Egyptian
gods were superior to Moses’s God, so he demanded that his magicians replicate
the plagues. So willing was he to disbelieve Moses, and resist the command to “let
My people go,” the Bible says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 4:21,
7:13-8:19). The operative word in Pharaoh’s hardened heart is the word “heart.”
As I mention above, Genesis 6:5 asserts that “the ‘intent (yetzer)’
of man’s ‘heart (levav)’ was ‘evil (ra‘)’ all of the time. … [T]he
center of a human being’s decision-making processes (i.e., his ‘heart [levav]’)
has a ‘good inclination (yetzer ha-tov)’ and an ‘evil inclination (yetzer
ha- ra‘).’” The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart would emphasize his
free will rather than diminish it.
1. What
About Angels?
In my blogpost Angels & Demons 7: Can Animals, Children, or Angels SIN?, I state: “Angels, on the other hand, are not credited with having “free will.” Neither are animals nor children. For Rabbinic theologians, adult humans have that “watershed” of which Burke writes—both the good and the evil inclinations--the YETZER HA-RA‘ (evil inclination) and the YETZER HA-TOV (good inclination). Adult humans (past the age of puberty) have the knowledge of both good and evil. … If a being (such as a child or an animal) does not have the full capability to choose freely between good and evil alternatives, that being is not held “accountable” for any sins.
While Calvinism presents a strange and
upside-down picture of free will in which humans have no free will
(predestination) yet angels possess free will in the teaching on fallen angels,
Jewish theology paints the more correct picture: Angels, animals, children, and
the mentally handicapped have no free will. All other adult humans possess free
will. No excuses for drug and alcohol users or the (so-called demon-possessed) humans
who succumb to psychotic entelechy.
