Okay, Free Will- It cannot exist, It must exist. Both camps are right, both are wrong. To have an absolute view of it is to miss the concept entirely in my mind. I am not so sure that we can grasp it, and the debate over free will (or lack thereof) is all framed in human conceptions of reality. The problem is, our conception of reality is not the actual determinative factor of reality. You know, Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life.” What is reality but the truth? Paul talks in Colossians about reality being found in Christ. I think the debate is outside of our comprehension. I think it is all tied up in His glory, which we cannot yet fully see or comprehend.
This debate radiates all over the place. Predestination is a free will debate, but it is from God’s end, not ours. Nature verses Nurture is a free will debate in the context of science. Whether there is a gay gene or if it is locked up in psychological issues; is a free will debate. And the question of legalism (even though most advocates never realize this is what they are advocating) is the result of free will in relation to church. Of course, this is why the debate is so important, it shapes the way we govern ourselves in the church and in community. The liberal position is “no free will” which we see in liberal churches (Episcopal split/ Methodist) and politics (rehabilitative justice). Then we have the conservative position with conservative churches (God hates fags movement) and politics (retributive justice).
In many ways the history of religion has been shaped by all of this as well. The Pharisees were the religious conservatives of the day. They butted heads with Jesus all the time as did the Sadducees who were the liberals of the day. I’m not saying there is some moderate view that will solve the puzzle either. That would simply represent some other human interpretation. Basically, I think with all the time we have had on this planet to figure out the question of the will, with all of our philosophers, and with all our experience and debates on the matter: we are still where we begun on the subject advanced as far as basically two polarized and entrenched camps.
So, I propose, what J.P. tells me has been proposed before (of course – “nothing new under the sun”) there must exist a third view of the will, one we cannot understand. This view is a fully realized, cohesive and indestructible theory of the will, which is Jesus ("the truth") which we cannot fully comprehend: “[s]uch knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain.” David wrote this in Psalm 139, and he was talking about his own nature (and God’s ultimate understanding of it), and I have to agree, no one is ever going to fully understand human nature.
I think the best thing to do is simply to believe that we must struggle against sin fully and completely accepting our guilt and wretched nature (siding with the conservative view) while fully and completely counting on the Lord to carry us through as someone totally incapable of doing so (siding with the liberal view as well).
