The Mega-Parable is an exciting subject that awakens a new understanding of the Scriptures. It opens a dimension of the Scriptures that few have enjoyed to date. Before continuing with the Mega-Parable, however, we want to discuss a subject that stands in our way and ties right into the next portion of the Mega-Parable. In spite of the wonderful elucidating truths of Adventism, certain foreign ideas of truth find a way to tag along without our conscious realization. We need to identify these and expose them. One of these ideas is the theory of "Predestination".

Predestination is an old doctrine. Like a persistent flu, over more than two millennia, Predestination has proven its ability to survive in the most adverse of doctrinal reformations. It is a dubious theory that precedes Calvary, yet it persists even today. In obvious and subtle ways, Predestination undermines the plan of salvation. It has a fundamental conflict with free will. The idea, that man's future is knowable, predictable or subject to external manipulations, is very difficult to reconcile with free will though many inexperienced individuals claim otherwise. The marriage of free will and Predestination can only be realized in a Hollywood production. On the Hollywood screen, anything is possible, but wishful thinking needs to be distinguished from reality. Nevertheless, like Hollywood producers, many Christians, and some Adventists, knowingly or unknowingly, endorse some form of Predestination.

The theory of Predestination and its offspring are very special. They have peculiar qualities. Once embraced, these ideas are defended with amazing tenacity. More often than not, believers of the sister theories of Predestination don't even realize that their ideas relate to the Predestination theory. Some concede that this theory does not belong in their faith and believe to be opposed to it. Surprisingly, however, when discussing the plan of salvation, strange anomalous bridges to Predestination are kept in good shape and protected with the fiercest artillery.

The subject we are about to engage and its varied forms are not something that could be compared to a walk on the beach. It is a very touchy subject. It is often highly inflammatory, because of its proximity to certain personal beliefs and fears. Many have suffered loss of friendship via discussions on Predestination and foreknowledge. Experienced Christians develop a healthy respect for the subject. This subject fascinates and terrifies at the same time.

With Predestination, problems and difficulties arise in such multitude that the adequate approach, to introduce this subject, is up for grabs. What is most difficult is that the definition of Predestination varies greatly from person to person. Everyone seems to have a different version, though, when boiled down, most of the explanations present the ideas of determinism. Predestination is really an offspring of ‘Determinism’.

Like the beast with seven heads, Determinism gives rise to conflicting ideas whose one objective is the same. Individuality and accountability is dispensed with. Determinism gives rise to the ideas of Predestination, fate, foreknowledge, fortune telling, hand reading, psychic readings, etc. These varied forms also present a problem. Whichever of these is embraced it rarely remains in its pure form. Predestination often borrows from fate and foreknowledge. Psychic believers, however, often endorse all or most of the other forms. If you engage someone in a discussion relating to one of the offspring of Determinism, often he may smoothly switch from one theory to the other and unless you are well versed in this subject, you are in trouble. Like fighting a beast with seven heads as you engage one head, the other one comes up behind you and you are in trouble. If you succeed to fight off both of them, you still have five to deal with, and they all come from different angles.

In spite of this difficulty, however, one constant seems to remain. The necessity for the freedom of will, like a terror from the dark, seems to crash in and terrorize most Determinists who feel that free will is essential. Some Determinists do not feel that free will is essential. They claim that free will is nothing more than a figment of the imagination. We will discuss their case later.

To provide for the existence of free will, inexperienced Determinists use combinations and permutations of various ideas. Frequently, contradictory ideas are used to explain one side of their argument while, unnoticeably, the other side is not in agreement with former assumptions. It reminds us of a circus clown trying to pick up too many diner plates. As he tuck them under his arms and bends over, to pick up the last one, some slip out from his grip and fall behind him. Likewise, in the end, Determinism with its offspring, Predestination, foreknowledge, Fate, etc. seems predestined not to be reconciled to "free will".

The aforementioned tenacity of Predestination or Determinism theories has gained the respect of many heroic individuals. Many have tried to reduce and simplify their views, to expose the inadequacy of these theories. Overwhelming success in doing this is rare. Nevertheless, we need to engage this problem in order to clear the road for new and enlightening ideas that the Scriptures offer. We need to clear up some fundamental details, which make it possible for distracting ideas like determinism to sprout roots. As we will shortly see, the smallest error in this domain tends to lead far away from truth.

Predestination is a consequence of error. What is often difficult to convey is that the subtlety of its error is positioned so that it is extremely difficult to perceive, by the proponents. The difficulty is not so much with the aspect of faulty reasoning, facts or information, though it is all that. Reason can deal with this theory successfully and easily discredit it. Determinism, results in fundamental aberrations of reasoning because of insecurities, aggravated to the point that clear thinking cannot take place. Certain beliefs that Christianity has embraced over the years have become something like the ‘Holy Grail’. It is strongly suggested that if you go too far out to sea, you may fall of the edge of the earth. Even Columbus cannot fight these beliefs any more. Religious ideas have been so well entrenched that taboo or belief has superceded plain and simple fact. Also, desiring to believe some idea to be true frequently has a hypnotic effect on the power of reason. It compels the student to overlook subtle errors in reasoning in order to find the cherished belief to be true.

To that end, let's look at a simple example of how faulty reasoning can at times appear reasonable.

The conflict of predestination and free will is similar to defining the values of both sides of the simplest equation: A = B. Only children make such mistakes. When the equation involves more variables, however, even mathematicians can make this error.

This mishap is referred to as "Over-determination". The rule is, "We cannot equate A to B and then define a value for both variables--at the same time". Curiously, this is true, even if you make A and B into the same value. Let's clarify what we are saying. In the deductive process, equations are used to deduce from the known of one side, of the equation, a value or representation of the other unknown side.

A = B and B = 5

Therefore: A=5

This is simple enough for most of us to understand. From the known of the right side, (B=5), we derive the value of the left side A. Thus, we conclude that; A is equal to 5, when B is equal to 5. Over-determination occurs when we try to define both variables A and B in the same instance.

1. If A = B and A = 7 and B = 5 then maybe 7 = 5
1. If A = B and A = 5 and B = 5 then 5 = 5

Line 1 and 2 are examples of over-determination. One variable (A) has been defined twice. Consequently, the results are ridiculous. Once it is applied, over-determination will produce absurdity. Should such process be accepted as a norm, the entire body of mathematics would collapse. This process could not derive any functional meaning. Any number would be equal to any other number.

There is an exception, however. Line 2 seems to produce a correct result. That’s rather curious! Although we used a faulty process, we seem to have come up with a proper equality. This is the point of this example. This type of process is frequently used to defend ideas for which people have a preference. The problem that the average person faces is that this statement seems quite truthful. Five is equal to five (5=5).

Someone inexperienced may conclude that under some conditions, over--determination may be a correct process. Since "5" is equal to "5", it may be argued that "Proper steps were taken to obtain this result" or we would not have a correct result! It may seem that false reasoning always leads to error, but as we can see above there are exceptions. There are times where error may lead to truth, though it may not justify its process.

Too often, arguments of this type are used in real life to support ideas, which are absolutely impossible. Because the last statement is correct, imaginary rules are generalized and anomalous ideas adopted. The end is used to justify the means. Regardless of the impressions and rationalizations, however, such reasoning is aberrant. In this situation, the process of dealing with equations was violated. Consequently, whatever conclusions are made, they are meaningless. In retrospect, the process used, to conclude the final statement (5=5), is not called derivation. The best that one could make of it is that it is a wishful statement next to unrelated equations. "I wish that 5 was equal to 5!" Fortunately this wish is also a reality and it does not contribute more than a wish to grow a nose on the back of the head.

These ideas seem obvious to many, maybe even too simplistic. In everyday life, however, most misconceptions are the outworking of simple errors. A very innocent looking mistake, under some conditions, turns into a mountain or errors. This is easier to understand if we imagine some faulty calculator, which adds the value of one (1) to every result. If you used that calculator to calculate the price at which you wish to buy some product, the result may not be shocking when small quantities are concerned. If after some calculations the faulty calculator returns the number $1.25 and it concerns one million items, you would calculate the total to be $1,250,001 instead of $250,000. The $1.25 calculation should have been $ .25. Clearly, we are not worried about the extra one dollar at the right side of this faulty result. The trouble here is that a small error turned into a mountain of $1,000,000.

With this in mind, let’s return to our discussion. The study of Scriptural truths is not very different from the above examples. The opinions we make about God have grave consequences. We need to be very careful about what we choose to believe. In this exploration, we want to make an effort to weed out as many uncertainties as possible. To that end let's start with a simple and reasonable assumption about ideas involved in Predestination and Determinism.

The difficulties with Determinism begin with determinations. Common sense tells us that, if someone else or something else determines a man’s future, we would be at odds with reason to define these determinations as self-determinations. If someone pushes me down a flight of stairs, it would not make much sense for me to seek help for suicidal tendencies, now, would it? Clearly, the outcome of that incident would have resulted from the intentions or determinations of someone other than me.

This, regretfully, as simple as it is, is the stumbling stone of many. Many bright and confident individuals, regardless of educational achievements or social status, cannot get over this simple idea. Due to some extraneous fears or apprehensions, they seem unable to approach the center of this thought, when God is involved in the equation. Frequently, psychology, rather than reason, overpowers the endeavor, and the student, like someone in danger of drowning, swims to the nearest shore. The terror of these, seemingly, deep waters, is evidenced in the tenacity of the students to hold their ground at any cost.

To relax from this fear we need to recognize that, absence of self-determination is synonymous with the absence of "free will". If a world without self-determinations should exist at all, personal desires would be of no consequence, since "external determinations" would be in charge of the individual's future. In this world, then, nothing personal could be achieved. The whole idea of being a free agent disappears. This type of world cannot be said to offer free will to its inhabitants, nor could the individuals be made to be responsible for their actions.

Within the domain of Determinism, free will is absent. Scientific proponents of Determinism are usually well aware of this realization and agree heartily. In a nutshell, everything is either predetermined, written in fate before it happens, or the outworking of chemical processes. Religious individuals often endorse the first and scientific students or atheists, agnostics, etc endorse the latter.

Endorsing "free will", as an integral element of our existence, on the other hand, Christian or not, we are compelled to reject Determinism. Believing to possess the power of "self-determination", we must be ready to discharge all others from any responsibilities and consequences that may follow our self-determining actions. The person that makes use of free will becomes solely responsible for his actions. Once the exercise of free will is engaged, the notions of absolute control fade out and the individual's future loses its absolute dependence on external determinations. The claustrophobic world of Determinism vanquishes.

This either or relationship between free will and external control is defined as a mutually exclusive relationship. Only one of them can be in charge of the future. When one is embraced, the other one loses its value. They are not compatible. If we claim that man's behavior is externally pre-determined, then we can eliminate all discussions of free-will. Should we endorse "free will", then, Determinism is a pointless concept useful only for hypothetical discussions.

Of all the religions of the world, for some reason, Christianity seems to experience the greatest frustrations with the ideas of Determinism. Since responsibility for actions requires the exercise of the will (free will), most Christian believers place vital import on the presence of "free will". Many claim to be proponents of the Open Creation theory, but all too often as the subject is explored thoroughly, they find that they are not. Let's look closer into this subject.

The implications of the "Open Creation" theory bring much relief, the first time they are perceived in the minds of youth. More than passive appreciation, the free will ideas are dearly treasured by the freedom seekers. Nevertheless, this wonderful view suffers greatly when it is brought in contact with another popular view of Christianity. Christians believe that God is all knowing. Since we believe in God, the word "all", however, is not always, what it may appear. Through the statement, "God knows all", the word "all" is stretched across everything that could and could not be conceived. It is advanced that God simply knows everything, including, history, the present and, most importantly, the future.

An uncertain world, with all the woes and pains which it faces, gladly welcomes any comfort it can get. The possible is made as welcome as the impossible to bring relief. Regretfully, the "God knows all" suggestion brings in subtle yet serious difficulties. Foreknowledge, a dear family member of predestination, undermines the very idea of "free will". This is a very sore point in Christianity. It is a great generator of polemics. All the great minds in the history of Christianity seem to have grappled with it in some way. It is an issue, which refuses to be buried, no matter how much time passes. In sum, strained and convoluted explanations, to reconcile God's foreknowledge and free will, always come up.

Looking outside of Christianity, however, the resolution of this conflict does not seem so difficult. In Islam, this difficulty is avoided by the introduction of "fate". Islam maintains that destiny, or fate is greater than Allah (the Islamic god). This conclusion, as we may expect, asserts the fundamental idea of a deterministic world. Though this is incompatible with what Christianity asserts, it is nevertheless a workable idea. It appears that someone in Islam took time to understand this issue well.

Islamic top down view of the heavenly order:

                         

 

Encapsulating this thought, some may wonder what use, this Islamic belief may have. The Christian world is not Islam and considering the massive intellectual strides and successes of the Christian bodies one may gain the false impression that 'we are beyond that!'

Unfortunately, that conclusion is far from truth. As it turns out, many ideas in Christianity substantiate the idea of Determinism. Occasionally, these ideas are preached openly, but more often than we wish, Determinism is taught implicitly along a variety of other avenues. Often, we do not realize how powerfully these ideas are introduced to us. The nurture argument which we discussed in chapter one, claiming that the future is somehow knowable, predestination, along with many others are all parts of the same musical score--Determinism.

Additionally, within the Christian society, though outside of the churches, a variety of concepts and engaging activities like hand readings, Tarot cards, coffee cup reading, and a horde of others join the choir of Determinism. The fortune tellers subtly yet forcefully introduce it's principal ideas. The suggestion that, the future is knowable, is a subtle and pernicious idea that enlists many followers from all faiths. This idea has two sides. On the outside, it comforts man that everything is in absolute control. While catering to the deep-seated insecurities of man, it also greatly harms our perception of God's incomparable achievements and character. It suggests that our lives are either predictable or written in the books of fate. These thoughts further suggest that our participation in life is trivial. Responsibility is lost because man reasons that whatever is inscribed in fate will occur regardless. How often do we hear the words, "I guess that was just meant to be!" This idea is so well backed up that even songs are written to reinforce it. Anyone remembers the song, "Que sera, sera, whatever will be will be..." The feeling that our future is fully knowable and perceived by someone like God tends to dilute the zest for life.

We think of Determinism as a separate hypothetical issue discussed by philosophers, while we swim and drown in the powerful currents of its doctrine. Few realize the implications of this ravaging philosophy. Even fewer realize how deeply ingrained these ideas are, in the social fabric of this world. Regardless of protestations from some, Determinism permeates throughout most of man’s philosophies. It reaches deeper than the best religious doctrine of any age.

Determinism Fortune Telling Fate Deductive foreknowledge Foreknowledge Fatalism Islamic faith Predestination

Free Will Open Creation view

Christian predestinists suffer greatly in this debate. Frequently they are forced into intellectual compromises that test their faith severely. As they rationalize, the principal concerns are rooted in wrongly founded fears and certain select semantics; "God can see the end from the beginning", "God can do anything". These conclusions are accepted without reasoning. Similar to our math discussion of determining the result of the equation and then justifying the deductive process, these assumptions are endorsed, promoted, and defended with the idea that such belief is based on faith. Hybrid forms of arguments are used to defend against imaginary threats. The principal fear is that any other view weakens God's omnipotence or omniscience and we can't have that.

This apprehension, however, is wrongly founded. Ignorance about God and His powers, coupled with insecurity, compels many to enlarge their view of God beyond reason. Have you ever heard kids talk about their fathers?

• Kid A: My Dad can lift a car!

• Kid B: My Dad can beat up your Dad anyway!

• Kid A: Oh no he can't! My Dad even stopped a bulldozer!

• Kid B: Oh yeah! Well my Dad is smarter and stronger!

Similar to kids that impress each other with the valiant feats of their fathers, we often indulge in like behavior, though our discussions use more believable or less ascertainable promotions. God is able and willing to do everything that makes sense--morally within the realm of logic. His omniscience and omnipotence are rooted in this foundation. God is not "so" omnipotent that He can do everything that makes sense and anything else. Making God more powerful than He is, one needs to consider the implications of making God into someone that does nonsense. Sadly, this is what many believers unwittingly say about God.

Men, drunk with power and power seeking, may not perceive this distinction. Lack of restraint is evident is such characters. The impression is that when it comes to views about God, one can floor the gas pedal and forget the brakes. Feelings of insecurity compel these proponents to exclaim, "You better believe that God can do anything!" That, simply, is not true! God cannot save you against your own will, even with His perfect love. Indeed, even God cannot do some things!

Omnipotence is frequently misunderstood. The best illustration of this lack of understanding is found in the extreme frustration that some Christians develop with a simple argument devised to prove that God does not possess limitless power. The famous inquest "Can God create a stone too big for Him to pick up?" is the riddle we are talking about. Their deeply ingrained insecurities come to surface, here, because whatever answer you give, God is less than absolutely omnipotent. If you say no, then there are some things that He cannot do. If you say yes, He still cannot do some things. Think about this. God did create some men that He cannot redeem, because they refuse it. This thought, however, is not in line with the claims of predestination. As we can see, moderation and careful thought are required here.

Our insecurity makes us wish that God were in absolute control. That is perfectly understandable. Many cry out, however, that this belief comes from within their faith in God, when, in fact, it is the lack of faith, which compels them to make such assessments. Furthermore, those that try to convert from faith to understanding are severely punished for their endeavor. Lucifer is never pleased when our faith becomes knowledge or brings understanding. Faith, they claim, must remain faith forever. Such reasoning, however, is not different from absurdity. Many things we take on faith become clearer as time passes and full understanding takes place of faith.

Some Christians use Romans chapters 8 and 9 to defend their views about predestination. Studying these chapters, we are compelled to conclude that Paul is a predestinist. This is beyond dispute. Contrary to the opinions of many bright and/or good willing Christians, there is nothing that reason can counter to transform Paul's arguments. These are not indirect and abstract explanations. The following verses clearly expound the predestinist view.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Romans 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

In the Adventist Bible Commentary the concluding remarks, on predestination, interpret Paul's words to imply that every person is predestined to be saved. This idea is often called preelection.

Salvation is offered freely to all, but not all accept the gospel invitation. S.D.A Bible Commentary Vol. 6 p. 575

Their assessment, of what Paul is saying, is "if one chooses evil, then, this predestination will be canceled". Reading Paul, one wonders how such a conclusion can be extracted from his writings. "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate." The words "For whom" clearly convey the idea of exclusion, from a greater set. The next verse takes up this issue and decides that those that have been predestined will also be glorified. This interpretation of the S.D.A.B.C. that 'All men are predestined', coupled with Paul's comments, could backfire. One might gain a false confidence that everyone will be saved, since everyone is predestined. The SDABC anticipates this misconception and supplies the explanation that "Many are called but few are chosen" (Matthew 22:16), to drive the point.

This last correction is quite reasonable. It makes sense, though it does not elucidate how Paul really felt about this. The fly in the ointment is that, according to Paul, Esau was predestined for perdition, before he was born. Here, however, it becomes difficult to weave in the global aspect of preelection. The best that we could make out of this is to propose that everyone is predestined for salvation except Esau!

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Romans 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

That conclusion, however, is not convincing. The Preelection idea has this terrible difficulty. Consequently, we are compelled to question if the SDABC's interpretation of Paul is reasonable. Is Paul really saying that all are predestined? It does not seem so, though this is critical in the SDABC's argument.

Realizing that predestination interferes with the foundation of free willing service, the SDA Bible Commentary makes another bold attempt to buffer Paul's view. Asserting that Paul, in no way, says that God bypasses the will of the individual, to achieve the goals of predestination, seems to qualify Paul's view as a candidate of sound doctrine. The following text points this out.

Salvation is not forced upon us against our will. If we choose to oppose and resist God's purpose, we shall be lost. Divine foreknowledge and divine predestination in no way exclude human liberty. Nowhere does Paul, or any other Bible writer, suggest that God has predestined certain men to be saved and certain others to be lost, regardless of their own choice in the matter. The purpose of this verse seems to be a practical one. Paul is trying to comfort and assure the affected people of God that their salvation rests in His hand and that it is in the process of being accomplished in accordance to His eternal and changeless purpose for them. Salvation is of course dependent also upon their perseverance, but this is not Paul's point of emphasis now. S.D.A Bible Commentary Vol. 6 p. 575

The purpose of this defense is well meant, but the argument is flawed with gross inaccuracy. Paul does not suggest, he states explicitly, that the individual has no choice in the matter. According to Paul, the will or the doing of man is irrelevant.

Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

How anyone can propose that, "Nowhere does Paul, or any other Bible writer, suggest that God has predestined certain men to be saved and certain others to be lost, regardless of their own choice in the matter."(S.D.A B.C. Vol. 6 p. 575), is bewildering. Ignoring or deflecting verse 16 is useless. Paul means what he says! Desperate attempts, to help him, don't accomplish anything more than embarrassment. Paul actually believes that God can obviate man's will and raise one man to be good and another to be bad! We find that in the next verse:

Romans 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Clearly, "it is not of him that willeth" to change or avail anything. Paul says that Pharaoh had no choice in the matter. God raised him and gave him authority for that purpose. Verse 17 is used as vital support for the former assertions of Paul. His view is that, God's mercy is the vortex around which the future of all spins. His understanding of God's mercy is, somewhat, preemptive. Salvation is not based on the acts of a person and man's will is subject to modifications. It can be altered and tailored according to God’s will.

Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

The question, "Who hardens the heart of Pharaoh?" is conveyed without confusion. There is no lack of clarity here! Paul advances that, God hardens Pharaoh's heart--"whom he will he hardeneth." This view is consistent and confirms Paul's former assertion that, man's will is irrelevant. To contend otherwise, is difficult, at this point, though many well-meaning believers may not like the implications.

Rather than looking for complicated answers, to this enigmatic proposition, let's ask the obvious question. "Is this fair?" To the dismay of many good and well-intentioned people, this is clearly not fair! The human will is critical for all those that have tasted slavery. Having believed that all the disciples knew everything and believed everything just right, this realization comes to us with hard lumps.

We may want to question if we are on the right track with this reasoning? Is it possible that Paul views things this way? Does Paul understand that God should not fault someone that He predestined to do something? Predestination implies a takeover of the subject. Is this a point that he considered? If, according to predestination, Pharaoh has no power to resist God's will, then, why does God yet find fault in Pharaoh's actions?

Romans 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Here, however, we can no longer deny what Paul is saying. The obviation of the will is clear, "For who hath resisted His will?" Paul is talking about a conflict of wills! Paul anticipates the listeners' questions because he believes in the dominance of God's will and predestination. Men cannot resist the overriding will of the all-powerful God. He seems to have discussed this argument before. This is not a reasonable way of conducting the affairs of a world, but clearly, Paul has no answer to this enigma. For him, this is so baffling that he does not know how to make it work. After straining to understand this matter, he concludes that God has the right to do this, and who is man to question Him on this matter?

Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

This strange incrimination of the hypothetical inquirer "Who art Thou?" is worth noticing. Interestingly, Paul does not answer his own questions. Verse 20 is not an answer to verse 19. It is not a resolution of this difficult idea, which he has placed on the table. It is a threat against those that would ask that question. As reason demands, Paul's answers run out in verse 19, yet, rather than abandoning the subject, he chooses to explain it away the best way he knows how.

Romans 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Clearly, the honor and dishonor, here, are descriptive of the moral state of man. We are not talking about honor for Olympic achievements or mastery in sciences. This context is underscored further within the next verses. Paul proposes that, God makes some fitted for destruction and others unto glory.

Romans 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Romans 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

As we read more and more from Paul's text, the evidence that Paul believes in the crude form of predestination, which bypasses human will, is overwhelming and incontrovertible. This view is consistent throughout his expositions. In his letter, to the Philippians, he discusses the same ideas. Now that we have read and understood chapter nine, we can understand where Paul is coming from in the following idea.

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.

To close the eyes or hold this issue at bay is pointless. Paul is not God! His contribution was great, yet he did not enjoy the privilege of walking and talking with the Master, every day. Paul disagreed with the disciples in certain points, and clashed with Peter. The idea of man's relationship with God was not easy to understand in that time. The early Christians were barley able to grasp the overwhelming events that just transpired. The immensity of Calvary has occupied the minds of great and humble men for 2 millennia. To imagine that the early church had flawless understanding of every spiritual idea is not to be aware of the greatness and broad implications of those events.

Finally, other minds have dealt with this issue. The issue of free will rarely escapes any deep thinker. With the privilege of owning the entire scriptures, commentaries and views of many other thinkers, and seeing many more events fulfilled than Paul, another member of God's people concludes;

Holy Spirit Does Not Take Place of Will. -- The Spirit of God does not propose to do our part, either in the willing or the doing. This is the work of the human agent in cooperating with the divine agencies. As soon as we incline our will to harmonize with God's will, the grace of Christ stands to cooperate with the human agent; but it will not be the substitute to do our work independent of our resolving and decidedly acting. Therefore it is not the abundance of light, and evidence piled upon evidence, that will convert the soul it is only the human agent accepting the light, arousing the energies of the will, realizing and acknowledging that which he knows is righteousness and truth, and thus cooperating with the heavenly ministrations appointed to God in the saving of the soul. EGW Lt. 135, 1898.

Determinism versus non-determinism have been at each other's throat for millennia. An all-powerful God is difficult to explain by finite man. There is always the fear of underestimating God. The seeming security of Determinism or its offspring is very comfortable. It seems to speak favorably for God. This appearance, however, is all that it offers. As we said earlier, this view has a fundamental conflict with the idea of free will. To sustain the ideas of Determinism you have to fiddle with abstract arguments that do not reveal, but hide the issues of free will in convolution and complexity. This argument is an everlasting struggle with reason. Just when you think you have an explanation, someone bursts the bubble, by exposing the loss of free will, and you are back to square one.

At this point, the crude determinist defenders crack and shift to a more sophisticated platform. They propose that God can know, ahead of time, and predestine each man's life, because He sees the future. Hey, that sounds reasonable!

This conclusion, however, is the gravestone of reason. Predestination, now, takes a back seat because God, unlike before, is not a potter that molds the clay. Now God does not do anything serious about the future. Que sera, sera. Whatever will be, will be.

In this view, if one is bold enough, one might accuse God of cheating in His predestination, because He looks into the future to fake predestination. This facet only reveals evidence of some peculiar omniscience, and suggests lack of the use of omnipotence. There is something wrong here as well, and it is not simple! In this particular argument, the ability to exchange love and experience hope adversely affects both God and man’s case.

Paul, however, does not share these views. Paul does not go to that extreme. According to Paul, predestination is proof of God's omnipotence. This last variety of predestinists try to claim this too, unfortunately, in their attempt to promote God's omnipotence and omniscience, omnipotence is sacrificed and fate takes precedence over God. Fate, and not God, predestines the future of us all. God can spot the winners and consequently, He can predestine them (point them out) for salvation, ahead of time.

We are back to the Islamic god, and the freedom of will is still nonexistent, since the future is knowable. Our existence is pointless, because, we are sealed by fate before the sealing angel of Revelation seals us! Waoh! Did you ever think of that? What is the point of probation in this scenario? Is there any value in observing the inevitable misery of humans? Men would then be created for the mediocre purpose of observation, or what else could it be? What could possibly motivate God to create beings that He knows will never amount to anything good? Such creations would be proof of lack of responsibility and love. No God of love could do that. Not even humans are that cruel. Suspecting a potential deformity in their offspring, many couples do what is possible to prevent conception. Laws of several nations on planet earth, concerning procreation, have been made to prevent deformed offspring whenever possible. Finally, what is the point of sealing people if God already knows the outcome? Time for rationalizations! Could it be that the Islamic faith is based on a more reasonable foundation? God forbid!

Throwing their hands up in the air, some predestinists call it "The mystery of God." Faulty assumptions tend to create mysteries. Considering the outcome of some of these arguments, we realize that we have grave difficulties on our hands. Determinism in all its forms, inevitably, strips God and His creation from all the highest attributes. As we step back and summarize, we begin to notice a pattern geared to soil God's character and His wonderful workings of creation. Any contribution toward Determinism gets us into deeper and deeper trouble. Finally, can we learn anything from this?

As we will see, shortly, it is not by mistake that fortunetellers advance these ideas as well. Determinism is Satan's strong hand, lent to subtly terrorize and confuse the weak Christian. Through this avenue, many get lost, spiritually. Many receive a faulty impression of God. Others realize that these are conjectures whose foundation is weak and they readily turn away from all that promote such ideas and lose contact with needed truths.

Unlike the 20th century Christians, Paul is well aware of the conflict of free will and God's absolute omniscience. He does not try to save the freedom of will. For him, God is the greatest. God can do anything He wants. Paul makes an effort to save both, the omnipotence and the omniscience of God. In support of his contention "it is not of him that willeth", he brings up an example which he believes to be right on the point.

Romans 9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Romans 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Let's inspect these verses again, now that we understand Paul's perspective better. In Paul's view "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" was decided preemptively--"the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil." Before they had a chance to do anything, God decided whom He will love or hate. Subsequently, as we concluded earlier, contrary to the suggestion from the SDABC, Paul does not support the idea that, all are predestined for salvation. The idea of preelection is foreign to his view. It is an improvised idea by other than Paul.

Regardless of its origin, common sense revolts against the idea of predestination. It is highly unlikely and questionable to consider that God predestines people's moral fiber. Curiously, Paul, unlike the predestinists and rationalizers of today, questions this. He wonders down the path of reason, as he asks the difficult question "Is this fair?" "Is God righteous or is there unrighteousness with God?" This wonder does not escape him.

Romans 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

Romans 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

How does Paul answer verse 14, to justify God? Within his argument, Paul was brilliant for his time, or at least consistent. Without hesitation, he sacrifices the "freedom of will." Compared to the 20th century predestinists, Paul makes some sense. He recognizes that you cannot have predestination and free will. Implicitly, he seems to admit this. He does not try to eliminate this conflict through aggravated rationalizations. His view, in this sphere, is a partial victory for the truth. Not having an answer, Paul rules in God's favor. Such actions are commendable. When we do not understand something, faith helps us to hold on.

The error of today's predestinists is that they fail to recognize this. They flip a coin and expect to see both sides at once. That, simply, cannot be done. You cannot reconcile predestination with free willing service. Just saying, "It is possible" is not good enough! Reason is not based on wishful thinking. God is not unfair. Insisting that these are reconcilable issues is faulty and dangerous thinking. The imposition of moral control over a free willing being and then judging that being, for having done what he/she was programmed to do, is "absolutely" unfair!

Paul's own question "Is there unrighteousness with God?" suggests that he recognizes this. His question is not answered. It cannot be answered! No reason is supplied to explain why there in no unrighteousness with God. Instead of dealing with the righteousness or justice of God, which at this point is impossible, he swerves and discusses only the mercy of God. Though he does not see the issue clearly, Paul shows his faith in the Father's justice by doing the best that he can.

Paul seems to adduce that, since humanity has fallen, God, via mercy, has the right to pick and choose. Nothing that man does, or wills, makes a difference. In this strange conclusion, the issue of the justice of God is avoided. Yet, though we know that God is merciful, we also know that He is just. In Paul's scheme of things, the justice part is a little difficult to explain now.

Nevertheless, though Paul runs out of answers, he has undertaken to argue this issue for a good cause. Paul works hard, to yank out man's confidence in self-righteousness. Self-righteousness was the predominant problem of the Jews in his time. In this effort he says "no man is justified by the law in the sight of God". Pushing this idea further, his zeal drives him to step over the boundary that involves free will.

Sacrificing freedom of will and giving God control over everything helped his personal effort of shaking man's confidence in works. Unfortunately, it also created another problem. It became difficult to explain how people could be held accountable for actions that they did not originate. If God makes vessels unto dishonor by making them morally corrupt, then they are not accountable. They just play a role. If the individual’s will is bypassed, and the individual created to do or not to do something, there are no actions, for which one could make a court case against them. This is a fundamental definition of responsibility. These thoughts are not new for humanity. They were explored 1000 years before our time and probably debated widely before Calvary.

. . . If the response of the listener has already been predetermined by an all-knowing, all-powerful Deity, what is the status of such appeals? Is it fair or just for the Deity to then reward and punish humans on the basis of a decision made from all time by that Deity?

Shahrastani quotes Wasil, the most famous theologian of the Mu'tazilite school of theology, who rejected divine predetermination.

"It is not possible for him [God] to will for His servants what is in disagreement with his command - to control their action and then punish them for what they did.

Later he quotes 'Amr as asking, "Does he predestine me to do something and then punish me for it? . . . " Ian P. McGreal Great thinkers of the eastern world, In a discussion of Shahrastani, an Islamic theologian, Born in 1076 Khurastan Iran p. 517

If we are honest with ourselves, we will realize that the predestinator, or programmer, who makes his subjects do, what he wills, becomes accountable for the immoral actions. The originator of the determinations that come to pass is the sole entity that should be held accountable for the consequences. Of course, in the Christian case, the Predestinator and the Judge is one and the same Person. It is God. These objections, though from the Islamic faith, reveal a deeper insight into this problem of free will. The Christian predestination ideas are not complete. They awaken contradictions, which can shake the faith of the best Christians.

At this point, some of my readers may panic. You may ask: "How does anyone dare to question Paul? Wasn't Paul inspired? Isn't every word in the Bible inspired? How far will we get, if we start questioning the Word? What audacity to use eastern religious thought to minimize the word of God!" We can deal with these questions, but let's consider some other more important ones.

How dangerous is it when Christians misrepresent the God of heaven because of lack of study or lack of experiential knowledge of Him? Is the Bible holier than God? Is Paul God? If God was interested in conveying impeccable truth, why did He use humans to achieve this task? That in itself is an oxymoron! Shall we worship the letter rather than the Living God? Christianity has much experience in making the images more important than God. If the Bible is the perfect word of God, how is it that there is so much disagreement as to its meaning? That, in itself, implies a type of imperfection. Here we have another oxymoron! What do we make out of statements like:

2. Corinthians 11:17 That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.

2. Corinthians 11:18 Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also.

In keeping with the spirit of reactions, which some readers may have, to this critique of Paul, is this last text a reason to abandon the Scriptures? Paul clearly disclaims inspiration at this point. The issue of "every word of the Scriptures being inspired" is clearly in jeopardy here. And to make things worse, this is stated by the same person that says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God"! Did Paul number himself as part of the holy writings? Seeing the evidence, that not everything we may think as inspired is inspired, shall we condemn God, for some reason? Let's not, dear friend.

In this dire situation, predestinists can find help in oxymorons by saying that Paul was inspired to write uninspired words. Indeed escapism is an art form and many live by it. We, however, are not going to exercise escapism. Truth is often frightening, but once understood, it is also glorious. Contradictions are frequently the portals of deep and great truths. God has always encouraged man to use his mind. Those that prefer to use crutches and lean on others, when their legs can carry them, are given a solemn advice.

A brother asked, "Sister White, do you think we must understand the truth for ourselves? Why can we not take the truths that others have gathered together, and believe them because they have investigated the subjects, and then we shall be free to go on without the taxing of the powers of the mind in the investigation of all these subjects? Do you not think that these men who have brought out the truth in the past were inspired of God?"

I dare not say they were not led of God, for Christ leads into all truth; but when it comes to inspiration in the fullest sense of the word, I answer, No. I believe that God has given them a work to do, but if they are not fully consecrated to God at all times, they will weave self and their peculiar traits of character into what they are doing, and will put their mold upon the work, and fashion men in religious experience after their own pattern. It is dangerous for us to make flesh our arm. We should lean upon the arm of Infinite Power. God has been revealing this to us for years. We must have living faith in our hearts and reach out for larger knowledge and more advanced light.-- Review and Herald, March 25, 1890.

This view about Paul is not a common view shared among Christians. Many feel a sense of loss in considering that a Biblical author could make a doctrinal error. In fact, Paul's teachings seem to dominate Christianity to such a degree, that, among some, little else is quoted or used to defend truth. Consequently, scrutinizing Paul is not very different from scrutinizing God, in the eyes of many.

This disposition, however, is very troubling, especially in the Adventist circles. It brings to light a great disparity in our view. When we juxtapose the opinions of the conditionalists, which we discussed in chapter two, to the popular claim that 'All Scriptures are the flawless word of the Almighty' we need to sort out our priorities better. Firstly, the authors of the Biblical books were all men. Secondly, Paul was not referring to the New Testament in his famous verse.

2. Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The Scriptures, here, implied the books of the Old Testament, to Paul. In his days, the New Testament was not compiled. Paul did not have a New Testament in his library, to consult and compare with the Old. We may wonder if Paul even had a copy of all the prophets in his possession. I have serious doubts that he could have. The scriptures were rare possessions of the priests and the very elite. Please remember that there were no printing presses in those days.

Once we understand this, we also need to consider the reality about inspiration. Overall, Scriptural texts are not of the same category. The Old Testament writings are of a different caliber than some of the New Testament writings. Different motivations were involved. Some writings were good, but they were not inspired like those of the prophets, though their authors were good men, led by God.

It is stunning to see how valiantly, the New Testament teachings are defended, while prophecies, the highest degree of inspiration, are treated with the earmark of second or lesser class citizen of the Scriptures. Let's have a reality check here, for a moment!

Few passages of Scripture are more commonly misunderstood and variously interpreted than those containing the divine promises made to ancient Israel through the prophets. It is an undeniable historical fact that, to this day, the majority of these predictions have not been fulfilled. SDA Bible Commentary Vol. 4 p.25

God's words of prophecy are reduced to weak, unfulfilled, conditional promises or predictions, while men's words, reflecting men's opinions, are elevated to a status of the absolute perfect word of God. Dear friend, there is something wrong here! I don't know about you, but I raise God above men, in all situations! Paul's opinions are not equivalent to direct dictations from the omniscient God! They are not the pure word of God, because Paul does not claim that they are! No man's opinions have overriding value when compared with the words which follow "Thus sayeth YAHWEH:"

For those who recognize the magnitude and importance of prophetic inspiration, none of this is frightening. In the situations of prophets, things differ entirely. Taking dictation directly from the Lord evidently qualifies the contents as highly reliable. Prophecies are instances where God chooses His words. Nothing greater than the written prophetic words, except the explicit voice of God, has been given to man! The prophecies are the best candidate for being called the word of Yahweh. Unlike other text, they are clearly defined as such!

Jeremiah 30:1 The word that came to Jeremiah from YAHWEH, saying,

Isaiah 66:1 Thus saith YAHWEH, . .

Ezekiel 24:1 Again in the ninth year, . . . the word of YAHWEH came unto me, saying,

Hosea 3:1 Then said YAHWEH unto me, . .

Amos 3:1 Hear this word that YAHWEH hath spoken against you, . . .

Obadiah 1:1 The vision of Obadiah. Thus saith the Lord GOD concerning Edom; . . .

Micah 1:1 The word of YAHWEH that came to Micah the Morasthite . . .

Habakkuk 2:2 And YAHWEH answered me, and said, . . .

Zephaniah 1:1 The word of YAHWEH which came unto Zephaniah the son of Cushi, . . .

Haggai 1:1 In the second year of Darius the king, . . . came the word of YAHWEH by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel

Zechariah 1:1 In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of YAHWEH unto Zechariah, . . .

Malachi 1:1 The burden of the word of YAHWEH to Israel by Malachi.

No prophet of God omits to qualify God's words. Why??! Is it form only?! Have you ever wondered, why the prophets preceded the prophecies this way? Has God conveyed something here? Now, suddenly, we realize why that redundant repetition was conveyed so frequently. It looks like, once again, God knew what He was doing! In fact, almost every chapter of all the prophets are prefixed with this type of statement. God is familiar with man's weaknesses. He knew that sooner or later men would make idols of wood and stone. Similarly, elevating all Bible texts to the status "Thus sayeth the Lord" resembles the wood and stone problem.

Regretfully, and much to my chagrin, many readers will not be satisfied with this analysis. For many this may be understood as the best candidate of Sr. White's pointed objections found in Testimonies for the Church Volume Five page 709:

Instead of opening the soul to receive rays of light from heaven, some have been working in an opposite direction. Both through the press and from the pulpit have been presented views in regard to the inspiration of the Bible which have not the sanction of the Spirit or the word of God. Certain it is that no man or set of men should undertake to advance theories upon a subject of so great importance, without a plain "Thus saith the Lord" to sustain them. And when men, compassed with human infirmities, affected in a greater or less degree by surrounding influences, and having hereditary and cultivated tendencies which are far from making them wise or heavenly-minded, undertake to arraign the word of God, and to pass judgment upon what is divine and what is human, they are working without the counsel of God. The Lord will not prosper such a work. The effect will be disastrous, both upon the one engaged in it and upon those who accept it as a work from God. Skepticism has been aroused in many minds by the theories presented as to the nature of inspiration. Finite beings, with their narrow, short-sighted views, feel themselves competent to criticize the Scriptures, saying: "This passage is needful, and that passage is not needful, and is not inspired." . . . EGW Testimonies for the Church Volume Five p. 709

Context, however, is not so clear when the text that follows is ignored.

. . . Christ gave no such instruction in regard to the Old Testament Scriptures, the only part of the Bible which the people of His time possessed. His teachings were designed to direct their minds to the Old Testament and to bring into clearer light the great themes there presented.

I would like to point out that this same sentiment is shared by me. Within the Old Testament writings, we find the word of God. Why? Because, as we saw earlier, every prophet clearly testified to this. God told them what to say and write!

Isaiah 8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man’s pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz.

Isaiah 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:

Jeremiah 30:2 Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book.

Jeremiah 36:2 Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day.

Habakkuk 2:2 And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.

God's words cannot be made arbitrary, conditional or into some form of psychic predictions. Those are words that come from the mind of the Omniscient! He himself places vital import in them. Throughout time God's words have cut some men through the heart and in one way or another, they tried to get rid of them. Some were burned. Yet, God would not be put off by that.

Jeremiah 36:28 Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.

Jeremiah 36:29 And thou shalt say to Jehoiakim king of Judah, Thus saith the LORD; Thou hast burned this roll, saying, Why hast thou written therein, saying, The king of Babylon shall certainly come and destroy this land, and shall cause to cease from thence man and beast?

Jeremiah 36:30 Therefore thus saith the LORD of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost.

Though sometimes hard, God's words are life to man. Without them we would have no sense of direction! This was well illustrated by the Savior in His wilderness experience.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

If the words of God are not fulfilled most of the time, as some believe, if the words of God are suspended on the actions of men, then this vitalizing statement from the Savior looses it's vitality. The value of God's words is paramount to humanity, but we need to ask God for help in discerning certain ideas, their origins and their portent.

Before appropriating an antagonistic disposition toward the Open Creation view, the reader may want to consider these elements. Staunchly defending Paul's writings and subordinating the writings of the Old Testament exposes an aspect of hypocrisy. Within Adventism this is further aggravated by our superior understanding of prophecies. Contrary to what some may believe, the strength of Adventism is conveyed more through prophecies than the writings of Paul or any other opinions of men. Unlike other Christian denominations, our religion is not the religion of Paul though many of Paul's writings have great merit.

The personal letters collected in the New Testament do not claim the status that some Christians place on them. The four gospels are a vital part of the Biblical writings. Nevertheless, contradictions do exist. We have dealt with a few in chapter two and the contentions about the agreement or disagreement between the four gospels are well known by most scholars.

Believing that Sr. White had the entire Scriptures in mind in, Testimonies for the Church Volume Five p. 709, one has to wonder if she should apply those same words to herself! Reading Philippians 2:13 we may wonder why Sr. White says the following

Holy Spirit Does Not Take Place of Will. -- The Spirit of God does not propose to do our part, either in the willing or the doing. This is the work of the human agent in cooperating with the divine agencies. As soon as we incline our will to harmonize with God's will, the grace of Christ stands to cooperate with the human agent; but it will not be the substitute to do our work independent of our resolving and decidedly acting. Therefore it is not the abundance of light, and evidence piled upon evidence, that will convert the soul it is only the human agent accepting the light, arousing the energies of the will, realizing and acknowledging that which he knows is righteousness and truth, and thus cooperating with the heavenly ministrations appointed to God in the saving of the soul. EGW Lt. 135, 1898.

As we read previously, Paul says the exact opposite!

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.

Some readers may feel disappointment, here. Does this realization cause us to doubt or despair? Shall we throw out the baby with the bath-water? Is there cause for alarm? At one time I had these apprehensions as well. Yet, given due consideration this view helps us to deal with many great difficulties. In this conflict, a new light is turned on. Rather than disappointment, studying the letters that the apostles wrote to the churches and one another, now, we may perceive that these men spoke from their heart. They spoke from their personal experience without collusion! No better proof of authenticity could be conveyed than this. They described their personal impressions regardless of contradictions. If they all spoke exactly the same thing, without a flaw, I would have to wonder about the genuineness of their experiences. As things are, my confidence is built up, not only in their testimony, but in my own ability, right and obligation to use the, God given, power of reason. I do not have to let other men interpret the scriptures for me. When I have a question, I take it to the One that can help me.

The pen of inspiration, true to its task, tells us of the sins that overcame Noah, Lot, Moses, Abraham, David, and Solomon, and that even Elijah's strong spirit sank under temptation during his fearful trial. Jonah's disobedience and Israel's idolatry are faithfully recorded. Peter's denial of Christ, the sharp contention of Paul and Barnabas, the failings and infirmities of the prophets and apostles, are all laid bare by the Holy Ghost, who lifts the veil from the human heart. There before us lie the lives of the believers, with all their faults and follies, which are intended as a lesson to all the generations following them. If they had been without foible they would have been more than human, and our sinful natures would despair of ever reaching such a point of excellence. But seeing where they struggled and fell, where they took heart again and conquered through the grace of God, we are encouraged, and led to press over the obstacles that degenerate nature places in our way. Testimonies for the Church Volume Four, Bible Biographies p. 12

No one in his right mind should elevate men to the level of God. Sr. White had a healthy outlook in this regard. At the same time, let it be clear that, it is not my intent to twist her words and imply that she held my view concerning Paul. Light on this subject, however, is needed and her choice words, concerning the doing and willing that the Holy Spirit will not do for us, suggest a broader understanding than many embrace.

Increased Light to Shine.--A spirit of pharisaism has been coming in upon the people who claim to believe the truth for these last days. They are self-satisfied. They have said, "We have the truth. There is no more light for the people of God." But we are not safe when we take a position that we will not accept anything else than that upon which we have settled as truth. We should take the Bible, and investigate it closely for ourselves. We should dig in the mine of God's word for truth. "Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart." Some have asked me if I thought there was any more light for the people of God. Our minds have become so narrow that we do not seem to understand that the Lord has a mighty work to do for us. Increasing light is to shine upon us; for "the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day."-- Review and Herald, June 18, 1889.

As we take up the study of God's word, we should do so with humble hearts. All selfishness, all love of originality, should be laid aside. Long-cherished opinions must not be regarded as infallible. It was the unwillingness of the Jews to give up their long-established traditions that proved their ruin. They were determined not to see any flaw in their own opinions or in their expositions of the Scriptures; but however long men may have entertained certain views, if they are not clearly sustained by the written word, they should be discarded. Those who sincerely desire truth will not be reluctant to lay open their positions for investigation and criticism, and will not be annoyed if their opinions and ideas are crossed. This was the spirit cherished among us forty years ago. . .

We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed. . . . --Gospel Workers, pp. 297-300 (1915)

A sobering idea that many forget is that, we are not immune from heresies through the mere reading of the Word. Such a view is nothing more than a myth. Look at all the divergent fragments of Christianity and regain your confidence, if you can. There is no safety in tradition, interpretation or any works of man. Self reliance will not help! We are in an all out war. The stakes are great, the issues are too big for man alone. It takes years to encapsulate a fragment of the depth of this immense conflict. If you did not notice it before, dear friend, "We are in trouble!" Safety is possible, exclusively, in a dynamic relationship with the Living God. There are no other solutions!

Many Gems Yet to Be Discovered.--New light will ever be revealed on the word of God to him who is in living connection with the Sun of Righteousness. Let no one come to the conclusion that there is no more truth to be revealed. The diligent, prayerful seeker for truth will find precious rays of light yet to shine forth from the word of God. Many gems are yet scattered that are to be gathered together to become the property of the remnant people of God.-- Counsels on Sabbath School Work, p. 34. (1892.)

The doctrine of biblical inspiration conveys different meaning to different people. An interesting view on this is worth reading. It comes from a fascinating contemporary writer.

Let's understand that the doctrine of biblical inspiration affirms the accuracy and inerrancy of the biblical text. . . nothing more. It assures us that what we find in Scriptures is what was written by the original author. But in no way does it endorse the doctrinal certainty and practical application of every single comment found in the Bible. Discernment applied to the whole of Scripture guards us from embracing half truths or out-and-out heresy based on independent statements pulled from their contexts. The Collected Works of Charles Swindoll p. 104

In sum, the Bible is a rich and wonderful book, whose equal is not to be found. Everything from songs, proverbs, history, down to prophecy, is included. Are we to suppose that human reasoning is out of the question? Were men to speak only of revelations? Such a conclusion would eliminate the greater part of Paul's writings since most of them contain reasoning on Old Testament writings--so called Scriptures.

Further, we might ask, "Is human reasoning infallible?" Let's see!

Galatians 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Galatians 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

Galatians 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Galatians 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Galatians 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

James dealt with the same subject. Let's read his perspective.

James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

James 2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

James 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

James 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

To discount this direct contradiction of two ideas is to close the eyes in plain view. It is a different issue to explain the Adventist view and show how both of these views, combined with new light, can be used as precursors to a better view. Clearly, Paul asserts with force "Abraham was justified by faith" and James claims with equal intensity that "Abraham was justified by works." Whose words are these? What degree of inspiration did these people have? Can the pure word of God contradict itself? Trying to be evasive will not help. Paul says: "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith." James counters: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? "

Nevertheless, this point does not detract from the glorious truth of the gospel. Quite contrarily, it enhances it. One man reasons from this angle another from the other and the foundation is laid. The truth is between these boundaries. The food is not all chewed up and regurgitated twice for us. It is for each man to study and chew for himself. As we concluded earlier, truth is revealed to us progressively.

It was human reasoning that brought these two good men into this contradiction. Apparently, this is acceptable. When we reach this understanding, we are compelled to sort out the finer points for ourselves. This condition rightly suggests to each reader to use his mind. Room for contribution is left for the student. Truth is cherished more when it is understood from within. It is much dearer to the participant when he participates and experiences success. Truth involves the individual.

Much to the dismay of phobic purists, God does not suppress and discourage man from exercising his mind. Man was not intended to stay on the milk-bottle for eternity! Contrarily, like a good father, God allows these elements to be recorded this way so as not to exclude, but invite, participation in the dynamic, progressive revelation of truth. Man was endowed with the quality of desiring to resolve difficulties and ambiguities. Similar to the idea of giving man teeth to chew on food, the mind has a natural desire to reason.

An inexperienced earthly father might buy his 5 year old son a remote controlled bomber airplane with every gadget in the book. Shortly afterward, he may wonder why his son does not get inspired to build an airplane from a log of wood. The creativity, rather than waking up, seems to have been put to sleep.

Two streets down, a poor kid finds a log of wood and some cutting tools. His imagination is sparked and he starts carving a boat like the one he saw last week. The objective of creativity is achieved without intimidation and the youngster finds much happiness in the objective. Strangely, even poverty was not a deterrent. Quite contrarily, it seems to have helped.

Similarly, God is a wonderful designer and He does not seek to impress and intimidate His subjects with searing realizations of glorious truth. He does try to awaken all that could be awakened. In teaching truth, God imparts it. He does not sell it for a sum then steps back counting the bills. Truth is not understood with the intellect alone and it is useless until it is used. Truth is understood with the heart as it is imparted and the man is changed. Knowledge also involves responsibility. There is depth and beauty in every flower and stem of grass and unlike men's works, anyone can have one to destroy or create something with it. Think about this. Fruit grows on trees not in our stomachs. Man needs to stretch his hand to grasp it.

God's perfection and that of the phobic purists are disparate entities. Reading the works of men it quickly becomes evident that their voice preaches their unique abilities, which they hope, no one has surpassed. Most men speak from the top of their ability. God, on the other hand, seems to work from the bottom of His. He uses weak subjects to reach the very weakest, and the funny thing is that it works. Christianity is that most unlikely enigma that traveled through 2 millennia against all odds and got the better of all others.

Finally, can we allow Paul to make a doctrinal error? Can it be done without loss of limb? Maybe we could hide it in some diplomatic words and not call it a doctrinal error. Maybe we can avoid discussing Romans chapters 8 and 9 and hope that they will go away. It has been done. It is being done all the time. This chapter of Paul is carefully avoided by many if not all the Biblical intellectuals. The panic driven extremists can give you such rough rebukes for exercising your God given intellect. Who wants to invite such trouble? Those who begin to understand this point are forced to use tricky wording sprinkled with enough suggestions to awaken suspicions and then back out unnoticeably. The punishment is too great. Banishment is too hard to take. In this atmosphere it seems as if clear thinking is forbidden. Though this is done frequently, we need to be courageous. Truth is not for cowards.

The discussion of Jacob and Esau is the vital element of Paul's exposition on Predestination. No better example for the argument of predestination could be supplied than that of Jacob and Esau's predestination. It is the pillar of this argument.

Nevertheless, Paul's understanding was not complete. Those that contend otherwise need to read Paul's writings more thoroughly.

1. Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Paul sought to understand why Esau was hated and Jacob loved, before they were born. That point is most confusing at first. The idea of predestination was around, in Paul's days. The Essenes, (a religious group preceding Paul) left a significant influence on the religious minds of those days. Paul was not ignorant of their existence or doctrines. Few learned men were. Predestination was at the heart of their doctrines and provoked many debates. It seems that Paul put these ideas together. Take a moment to think it through. What would we do in his position, having grown up among these scholars? It is quite tempting to reconcile ideas that way when no other thought comes to mind.

As we will see shortly, regarding Jacob and Esau, their experience is unique and not functional to prove predestination. In our former treatment of this matter, we concluded that predestination interferes with free will. That, however, is OK with Paul because he sacrifices "free will." But we are not through with this idea of free will, yet. To fully grasp these confusing ideas we need to inspect free will from a better perspective. As we will see later, this investigation will prove vital in our understanding.

To help us understand Him better, the Savior once identified Himself as a shepherd. He looked upon us as His flock. In His care for the flock, we might wonder, how should the will of the Shepherd interact with that of the flock? Where are the boundaries of God's will and man's will?

The free-will proponents argue that a shepherd has global responsibilities. Indeed, that is what defines him as a shepherd of the flock. Being aware that a certain field grows poisonous grasses, the responsible shepherd is compelled to avoid leading the flock there. Because of his manifold care, the flock knows and loves the good shepherd.

As we discussed earlier, the more sophisticated proponents of predestination explain their view through God's ability to see into the future. Such ability, however, cannot be implied with disregard to the natural responsibility that comes with it. A good shepherd also has a corresponding responsibility to protect His subjects from foreseen harm. If He does not, then, what value is there to having a shepherd. What would compel us to love Him? This helps us to ask the intriguing question, "What is the use of the crystal ball power?" What is the use of foreknowledge if not to protect and prevent disaster? Could it be that this ability can only be used for the purpose of observation, or entertainment for God??!

To my great surprise, when faced with this argument, almost every predestinist turns back on deterministic ideas and sings a different tune. Anticipating where this is leading, they now assert that it is not right for God to interfere with who will be born and who won't! Of course, that is in direct contradiction to Paul's view, which claims that God predestines the future! This is not the same head from the seven headed beast. The other one was called Predestination. This is not Predestination. This one can be called the "pre-existence Right to Life".

Nevertheless, if God cannot interfere in the creation of beings, then what is He??! Is He a prisoner of creationism? Does the "pre-existence Right to Life" oblige Him to create a being? Should this objection be taken seriously, the great Shepherd would be little more than an observer and His claims of care in verses like John 10:11-15 would be nothing but misrepresentations.

John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

John 10:12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

John 10:13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

John 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

In spite of the potential difficulties of this analogy, the more determined determinists insist that it is not right to interfere with the unborn, because they have rights. The lunacy of such claims is self evident. God is the Creator! He does not create beings because they have rights! These claims are not to be misunderstood with the claims of the Anti-abortionists. Their claim is that the conceived but unborn have certain rights. That point, is not in discussion here.

Let's explore this last objection. Imagine some highly fluxed activists protesting that the un-conceived fruit of the womb have certain rights. Though ridiculous, this discussion helps us to eliminate an important misunderstanding. If the un-conceived fruit of the womb (eggs) have rights, then any activities that do not contribute to procreation should be questioned. Think about it! The millions of crying non fertile eggs could perish because of distracting non-contributing or lack of sexual activity. This could be classified as lack of respect for the rights of potential human beings. The acceptable age of conception should be moved down. The law, concerning adultery, should be set aside for the sake of procreation. This is certainly an extreme view and it is likely that not many, if any, entertain it.

The elimination of this argument, however, brings us back to the discussion of the shepherd and his responsibilities. The strange opposition against the shepherd's responsibilities stems from the attempt to eschew a difficult argument against Determinism. In believing that God can see the future, one needs to explain why God created Lucifer to begin with. God could have prevented Lucifer's birth or creation without infringement on the rights of the un-conceived Lucifer. As a good Shepherd, He should have done it. Knowing that Lucifer would fall, God, as a good shepherd, would have that responsibility. Knowledge and power have responsibilities associated with them and God by choice and example has not made Himself an exception to this! As an omnipotent entity and with nothing morally improper in the way, it was His duty to secure the universe against the trouble of sin, if it was within His capacity! Clearly, it was within His capacity, because it is claimed that He can see the future! If God had acted on this knowledge, Lucifer would not have been around. Right now, we would be in bliss, and most importantly, the anti-abortionists would not even peep a word of dissent. Wow! Sounds like a triple bonus!

So, why did God not act on this? This is one of the pits of this view. There are no good explanations here. It becomes clear that a god of this type is not a loving god. Beyond the hordes of arguments that are usually supplied, here, no excuse is sufficient to cover up this lack of care. No amount of rationalization suffices. The only effective antidotes, against this exposition, are threats, willful oppression of the truth, suppression of the intellect, abusive use of authority, personal attacks against "the heretics" that ask these questions, misrepresentations, and if needed the ultimate punishment of alienation or banishment! Of course, these reactions are not news.

Undaunted by a moral sense, some Christian determinists propose to justify God on basis of His sovereignty, here. This flagrant disregard for the greatness and purity of the living God is very difficult on those that realize these implications. Unfortunately, like hands that develop thick calluses through abuse, the senses of the spirit can also grow dull. The continual abuse of Determinism tends to portray a god of insensitivity. After a while even good Christians develop insensitivity through the theories of Determinism and cannot see what all the fuss is about.

Nevertheless, for the sake of discrediting Determinism let's consider this last idea. Let's imagine, that because of His sovereignty, God would, knowing beforehand about sin, suspend His care for the universe and allow sin to materialize. This is what is implied through the belief that God has a crystal ball. Let's restate it. "Could it be that God knew about sin and He let it come into the universe anyway?"

The determinists try to eschew the implications by arguing that, should Lucifer have been omitted from creation, sin may have been introduced by someone else. This seems to relieve the burden of responsibility from God to the Wheel of Fortune. Un-fortune-ately this suggestion is weak. As in Lucifer's situation, since God is omnipotent, He could obviate the creation of any being that would give birth to sin. The Universe could be kept nice and orderly and very importantly the crystal ball would finally have a function to fulfill. Think about this, dear friend, this preemptive supervision falls into the category of God's responsibilities, if He has a crystal ball.

To the credit of some determinists, some of them realize that God would not be pleased with arbitrary decisions of this sort and they take this issue further. Since reason closes all the doors, for Determinism, the only way to continue, in this line of thought, is to suggest that sin was inevitable! This view, also, is often taken seriously. Those who believe in it, feel that, since sin had to rise, it may as well start with someone. Lucifer was a good candidate and God therefore created him. In this way, the god of these believers is fully discharged from the responsibility of sin's materialization.

Let's wonder about this. Could there be some value to this supposition? Was sin really inevitable? If so, God's creations may not be as good as He may have claimed!

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

The inevitability clause implies a god far from perfection. The entire creation becomes suspect and personal accountability suffers. A god who creates imperfect beings cannot exact or demand 100% perfection from them. After all, they are his imperfect creation since sin is inevitable. He, therefore, should have more understanding and not treat sin with death. Fair is fair.

The inevitability argument is hard to encapsulate for some. They have difficulties understanding the greatness and purity of God. Many who endorse Eastern religions accept the idea of a god with lesser values. Others realize that this is an impass. Yet, bent on Determinism they seek out anything they can find to rebuild the bridge. In dispair, they patch up the wounded truth with the idea that "sin was necessary"! They propose that sin was needed to enrich creation--something like a flu vaccine? This view has many adherents. If this is so, however, then, sin must be classified as good, and there is no reason to condemn the sinners. Let's remember that, if vaccines save lives, then, they are good! They have a place under the sun. Mysticism reminds us of such claims! Talk to any Buddhist. Such claims have nothing to do with Christianity! The vaccine theory is a direct path to eastern thought. Determinism leans in a direction away from Christian truth. Every stride sends the individual to a more and more distant location until he finds himself repeating the rethoric of the foremost enemies of the truth.

So where does all this leave us. This thought leaves many a Christian in wonder. Many fear to ask the obvious questions. They hold back and suffer the agony of suspicion and doubt. Is God imperfect? Is God able to contribute anything toward this difficulty? Does God care about us at all? Are we just imagining God, and there is really no one there? Do the Mystics and heathen have a better conception of God? I wonder if you are asking the same question as I am? Where is the evidence of love in determinism? It is nice to say "I love you", but it is better to see the evidence and viability of such claims. Determinism removes God so far that we can rightly question if our well being ever enters His mind. Those who fail to see this, however, face the difficulty of explaining how an omnipotent God can make such an imperfect world and yet call it very good. It is even more difficult to explain how God could call such creation perfect.

Ezekiel 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Not considering the deep and powerful implications of Ezekiel 28:15 one might conclude that God has no power to help! That conclusion, however, clearly weakens our faith in the omniscient and omnipotent God. Claiming that Lucifer had rights to life before he was conceived (Whatever way he was formed--stork, egg or kangaroo pouch) is an escapist argument not worth the breath. If sin was inevitable or necessary, then God's perfection is in jeopardy, and we are snoring in the bed of Mysticism. The black and white squares in the Mystic's temples, reflect this teaching. The black tiles represent evil, while the white ones stand for good. Being proportionately tiled they imply that, good and evil must coexist and one without the other loses definition. Good and evil balance each other out. Through this malignant theory, men are taught that God created both good and evil.

Remembering chapter one, we are reminded that the nurture argument makes the same claim! Is this a coincidence, or are we in the same bowl of soup? If everyone is predestined for this or that purpose, then, Lucifer must have been predestined to introduce sin. It was not his fault. The fault must lie elsewhere. Dear friend, these are Lucifer's arguments! Oh how that would solve Lucifer's difficulties! Success in these arguments could absolve him of all his guilt before the universe. Shall we help him in his endeavors???!

In the domain of Determinism, the supremacy of either God or fate is fraught with problems. It gives us a terrible outlook on the Creator. This implication, however, is not evident on the face of any of the Determinism arguments. The ugly side of Determinism is removed from the inexperienced by way of several steps in the deductive process. By the time it comes to surface, the better years of a man's life have been spent defending these seemingly favorable arguments to protect God and most importantly, His power. Men become power junkies, though the same God