Tag Archives: Apologetics

Free Will: Illusion or Reality?

I recently came across an intriguing column on the USA Today website entitled, ” Why you don’t really have free will”, written by Jerry A. Coyne. As you can probably predict, Coyne is making a case against the belief that humankind has free will. The denial of free will is part of the fabric of evolution. Theistic and atheistic philosophers have been debating this issue for ages. Philosophically it is the debate of Determinism vs. Free Will. Determinism by definition teaches us that all actions and events have been determined by preceding events or natural causes without the aid of free will or choice on humankind’s part. All actions and events have been determine to happen in a particular way and those actions or events could not happen in no other way. For instance, if Jim murders his entire family and then kills himself, it was determined that Jim would do so and he could not have done differently. Jim murdering his family, then killing himself, was not a choice on his part according to determinism. It was determined to happen that way either by God (theological determinism), biological effects (biological determinism), a product of Jim’s environment (sociological determinism) or psychological (psychological determinism). With the understanding of determinism laid out, let us proceed to Coyne’s case against free will in which he comes from the school of determinism called Biological determinism.

In Coyne’s column, after he has defined free will as when a person has two or more alternatives and that person freely chooses one of those alternatives, he presents two lines of evidence to suggest that free will is but an illusion. The first is that “we are biological creatures, collections of molecules that must obey the laws of physics.” Coyne goes on to say, ” Science hasn’t shown any way we can do this (step outside of our brain’s structure and modify how it works) because ‘we’ are simply constructs of our brain.” What Coyne is basically saying is that what “appears” to be us exercising free will is nothing more than biological workings of the brain.

The second line of “evidence” Coyne presents to us is that our brains are “meat computers”. Coyne said, ” Our brains are simply meat computers that, like real computers, are programmed by our genes and experiences to convert an array of inputs into predetermined output.” This means that our “choices” are a result of our genetic make-up and our environment.

Based on the studies of psychologist and neuroscientist, Coyne said the notion of free will “itself could be an illusion that evolution has given us to connect our thoughts, which stem from unconscious processes, and our actions, which also stem from unconscious processes.” Free will, therefore, is an illusion of evolution. Now let us see why these two lines of evidence are anything but evidence.

First, Coyne’s position that free will is an illusion assumes that the theory of evolution is true. He assumes that we are just biological creatures governed by the laws of physics. We must first ask for scientific evidence for the universe coming into existence from nothing and humans as products of the evolutionary process. Better yet, is the idea of evolution and determinism itself an illusion which some other thing or being gave to us to connect our thoughts? Could actions and events “appear” to be determined and can happen no other way, but in reality be the opposite? That free will is real and humans can choose or reject a certain course of action? By what standard can we judge by to determine whether free will or determinism is illusionary or not?

Lastly, if determinism is true, it is impossible to hold anyone morally responsible. If one’s immoral act is the result of biological workings of the brain and being influenced by his or her environment, then holding him or her morally accountable is meaningless. Furthermore, if evolution is true, by what moral standard or law does one judge a person by? What is evil and what is good? Without an absolute moral law from an absolute moral law-giver(God), morality is relative and therefore meaningless.

From a Christian worldview, God gives us free will. The first demonstration of that is found in the book of Genesis. God commands the first man and woman not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but ” Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat.” (Genesis 2:16-17) In Genesis chapter 3 Eve and Adam freely ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6) in complete disobedience to God. The serpent, Satan, tempted them, but they chose freely to give in to the temptation and partake of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Further evidence of God giving people choice is the nation of Israel. In Deuteronomy 30, God presents the blessings Israel would receive as a result of returning to God. Moses as he closes his discourse said, ” I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.”(Deut. 30:19)

The greatest of all choices is the choice to believe in Jesus Christ for salvation or not. In John 3:16 Jesus said, ” For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” This is only possible if free will exist. God has bestowed on humankind the ability to choose freely as He has the ability to choose freely. Lucifer freely chose to reject God and become God’s enemy. God does not determine who will be His enemy or who will be His ally randomly. Free will is an attribute of His that He freely chose to give us creatures who are created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, it is true that free will is a reality, not an illusion. Determinism and evolution is the illusion given to us by Satan Himself to keep us from God. Determinism vs. Free Will in reality is nothing more than another debate derived from the age-old debate: Does God exist? If God doesn’t exist, there can be no free will; but if God exist, free will is inevitable.

The Main Problem with Ecumenicalism.

Leave a reply

From time to time I think about the ecumenical spirit that seems to be making its way into our society and even into our Christian churches today. I expect this from the Baha’i faith which says it doesn’t claim any type of exclusivity, but embraces all faiths and practices. I especially expect this from the Masons with its brotherhood which ranges from all religious persuasions and philosophies. I am, however, dumb-founded at how the Christian church is falling into this ecumenical trap. There is two ecumenical traps in which the Church is falling into: The universal/pluralistic religious ecumenical trap and the cultic ecumenical trap.

The first trap is the universal/pluralistic religious ecumenical trap. It is the most common trap the Christian church falls prey to. This is the trap where certain local churches and ministers decide to put all major theological differences aside with ecumenicalists of other faiths for the sake of uniting under a cause that all faiths can agree upon. This cause is usually social and ethical in nature. Theological exclusivity and objective theological truth is never present in such dialogues because for it to be present would destroy the whole spirit of universal religious/pluralistic ecumenicalism. How to make society better morally, religiously, and socially are the themes of universal/pluralistic religious ecumenicalism.

The second trap is the cultic ecumenical trap. This trap has over time become more common in the Christian church and is for most part undetected by most in the Christian church. This kind of ecumenicalism is seen on Christian television networks and takes place in Christian churches in the United States and abroad. No, it isn’t Christians joining forces with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons in the name of God and the goodwill of humanity. What it is is Christians uniting with other cultic groups like the apostate Catholic church, Oneness Pentecostalism, the Word of Faith movement, and other such groups. Despite the major doctrinal differences regarding the nature of God, the person and divinity of Jesus Christ and salvation, certain local churches and ministers worship with them, pray with them, and even evangelize the lost with them. How can this be? How can the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ be so theologically ignorant? How can the Church unite with the Catholic church who teach that Mary the mother of Jesus is the mother of God, the Queen of Heaven and flat-out denies justification by faith? How can the Church unite with Oneness Pentecostals who deny the Triune nature of God? The group which teaches that Jesus is Himself, the Father, and the Holy Spirit all in Himself? How can the Church unite with the Word of Faith movement when their teachers teach that Jesus is not the unique and only begotten Son of God anymore and teach that we as Christians are just like Jesus?

The main problem with both kinds of ecumenicalism can be summed up as this: Religious Relativism. There is no absolute theological truth. There is no exclusive objective truth religiously. Particularly in the case of cultic ecumenicalism, there can be no other explanation one can give. Some may say, ” Perhaps they don’t know what those groups believe.” I beg to differ. With the widespread availability of material on the cults (Walter Martin, John Ankerberg, etc.), there is no excuse for not knowing better! I am sure letters have been written to these “Christian” ministers informing them about these cultic groups and how they depart from orthodoxy. Nevertheless these “Christian” ministers shun such warnings and instruction in the name of Religious Relativism.

In conclusion we should not be surprise at such compromises among those in Christianity, other religious groups, and cultic groups which claim to be Christian but are actually not. Truth is unimportant in these two forms of ecumenicalism which has been discussed here. Absolute objective theological truth is divisional in nature and these groups of ecumenicalists will not tolerate opposition to religious tolerance–Religious Relativism. We as Christians must champion the exclusivity which Jesus gave us when He said, ” I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father(God) except through me.(John 14:6). Without the Jesus of Scripture(the Bible) and his truth(John 8:31-32), a person cannot know God. (I John 5:11-12) There is a God who exist and He is revealed to us in Scripture. Religious Relativism and ecumenicalism in essence denies the existence of God and this is evident by the very existence of these two philosophical and theological worldviews.

What Translation are you reading from?

Leave a reply

On a cold Monday morning I was picked up by my future mother-in-law so I could do my laundry at her house. As we was talking about current events like the death of North Korean dictator Kim Jong II, she switched to how church went this past Sunday. As she shared with me these things, she told me that her pastor read from the New World Translation…from the pulpit! I was shocked to hear this! A Christian minister reading from the bible of the Jehovah’s Witnesses? But you may be asking the question, “What is wrong with the New World Translation? Is it just another version of the Bible?” To answer that question and to understand how tragic it was for a Christian minister to preach from it before his congregation on a Sunday morning, let us examine The New World Translation to see if it is just another version of the Holy Scriptures or a translation to be shun from the pulpit of the Christian Church.

The New World Translation was first published in 1950 by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society under its president Nathan Norr. In the years following the New World Translation would be revised several times in 1961, 1970, 1971, and presently its 1984 translation. But why so many revisions? The reason for so many revisions was because of essential doctrinal issues the Christian Church had and still have with the Jehovah’s Witnesses–such as the deity of Jesus and whether or not Jesus should be given worship like one gives worship to God. The Christian Church from its inception has held to the divinity of Jesus and the belief that He is to be worshiped because He is God in human flesh–the second person of the Triune Godhead. Not so, however, for the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that Jesus is God and they deny that Jesus is to be worshiped. According to Jehovah’s Witnesses Jesus is “a god”(John 1:1, NWT) the first creation of Jehovah God. So since God alone is to be worshiped (Exodus 20:5), then Jesus, a created being, cannot be worshiped.

There was a huge problem for the Jehovah’s Witnesses when they held to these doctrinal views such as the rejection of Jesus being worshiped–they contradicted their own bible! In the 1961 and 1970 New World Translation in Hebrews 1:6 it renders the verse as saying, ” But when he again brings his First-born into the inhabited earth, he says: ‘ And let all God’s angels worship him'”. Now if the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that their bible is the inspired Word of God–and they do–why then did they contradict the teaching of God Almighty as presented in His own Word? The answer to the question is simple and easy: The New World Translation is not the Word of God. This became evident when the 1971 New World Translation was released. In Hebrews 1:6 it now reads, ” But when he again brings his First-born into the inhabited earth, he says: ‘ And let all God’s angels do obeisance to him.'” Obeisance means, “A bow made to show respect or submission(Merriam Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus).” This word in no way implies worship in any way. If the New World Translation is the Word of God, has God changed His mind about what He told His angels to do? Did God have an “oops” moment or a short mental relapse and is now correcting His mistakes which is a huge theological one at that? If we believe God is perfect by nature then we must reject such reasons. We must therefore conclude that either the god of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is a finite being who is subject to making mistakes and changes or the New World Translation is the word of The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. These two reasons are the only reasons for such a radical change in Hebrews 1:6 from the 1970 to the 1971 New World Translation.

Therefore the pastor at my future mother-in-law’s church should have never preached from the New World Translation because it is not the Word of God. It is the word of the Watchtower organization and ultimately the words of Satan himself.The New World Translation is a defiled and corrupt translation of God’s holy Word and no Christian pastor should ever preach from anything other than the Word of the Lord. To preach from such a corrupt book is to usher in the demonic and satanic into the House of God. How sickening is the thought of such a thing! It is my prayer that this pastor and others who have done so will get on their knees before God and repent because the job of the pastor is to be a shepherd of the flock–his congregation–and protect them with the infallible and inerrant Word of God.

Posted with WordPress for BlackBerry.