God's Will: How much of it actually happens?

[madscientist]

Thanks Kurieuo for the site and others, it helped. The best thing out of it was that some things God lets freely happen, let us decide and even if this isnt something he predestined - so that not everything is rpedestined . MAkes more sense now but it still confused me with all those counterfactual things etc. Very philosophical.
OK if God chhooses the middle knowledge and judges us on what we do, does he aslo take into account what WOULD have happened if the world were differnet? Eg some time ago - lets say 3000 years ago 1 person decided to go to that town instead of that one and the whole world would look different today. And maybe there would be some people who would neever be born, and their souls wouldnt exist, or there would be people who would never had existed today if that and that hadnt happened. And maybe some people wouldnt do those sins or instead chose to accept Jesus Christ and be saved. Does God take this into account? Interested to haer your opinins/facts if you have any.

[Canuckster1127]

Thanks Kurieuo for the site and others, it helped. The best thing out of it was that some things God lets freely happen, let us decide and even if this isnt something he predestined - so that not everything is rpedestined . MAkes more sense now but it still confused me with all those counterfactual things etc. Very philosophical.
OK if God chhooses the middle knowledge and judges us on what we do, does he aslo take into account what WOULD have happened if the world were differnet? Eg some time ago - lets say 3000 years ago 1 person decided to go to that town instead of that one and the whole world would look different today. And maybe there would be some people who would neever be born, and their souls wouldnt exist, or there would be people who would never had existed today if that and that hadnt happened. And maybe some people wouldnt do those sins or instead chose to accept Jesus Christ and be saved. Does God take this into account? Interested to haer your opinins/facts if you have any.

I think there are some things we just won't know.

Free will, even limited free will as defined by Calvinists, requires some measure of personal responsibility for the decisions we make, regardless of the circumstances, known or unknown.

God doesn't parse it to this degree for us in his Word. Jesus does say however, in John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes unto the Father, but by me." Probably best to accept His at His word there as far as we are concerned personally and leave the higher level questions God has not declared of concern to us, to Him.

[Kurieuo]

Thanks Kurieuo for the site and others, it helped. The best thing out of it was that some things God lets freely happen, let us decide and even if this isnt something he predestined - so that not everything is rpedestined . MAkes more sense now but it still confused me with all those counterfactual things etc. Very philosophical.

I find Craig often makes sense once understood. I think he has got the predestination/free will issue right with the Molina position he advocates. It just clicks with me, and seems to make so much sense.

OK if God chhooses the middle knowledge and judges us on what we do, does he aslo take into account what WOULD have happened if the world were differnet? Eg some time ago - lets say 3000 years ago 1 person decided to go to that town instead of that one and the whole world would look different today. And maybe there would be some people who would neever be born, and their souls wouldnt exist, or there would be people who would never had existed today if that and that hadnt happened. And maybe some people wouldnt do those sins or instead chose to accept Jesus Christ and be saved. Does God take this into account? Interested to haer your opinins/facts if you have any.

I remember too thinking about this. What if God actioned one of those other worlds where we did not come to Christ, or someone else did?

I have seen it proposed that God places those whom He foreknows would choose Christ in the right time and situation. Such does not fit well with me, since I think it is very probable that one may choose Christ in one world while not in another. Yet, one could still choose to argue that our decisions will always ultimately be the same in every world. A further idea I believe Craig has put out, is that God chooses to activate the most optimum world, that is, the world where the most people would come to Him. If God actualises a foreknown world, it would make sense he would actualise the world where the most people would come to Him. This is all I believe would be required of God if He were good.

But... what about those other worlds were a person who rejects God in the current one, may have actually accepted Him in another? This question has some bite to it because it seems unfair that someone who is condemned because they lived out this world, would have been saved if they lived out another world under different circumstances. It is an issue I have thought much about.

One main thought I had in particular is that we can really only be judged on our actualised choices. If God could judge us as guilty based on His foreknowledge rather than reality, then He need not have created anything but the end result of the world. Yet, then how does He know who to create if no world has been actualised? Let us look past this issue for a moment, and assume that God could just create the end result of the world based on His foreknowledge. Now it seems odd that people would be judged righteous (in Christ) or condemned for actions which only existed in God's mind, specifically God's foreknowledge. Actions which they did not actually do. As such, a necessary condition when judging a person's actions appears to be that such a person actually does commit their actions in reality, and not only based upon knowledge even God's foreknowledge. If a necessary precondition of judgement is reality (what really happened) and not simply foreknowledge of what might have been, then God can only incorporate into His judgement what actually happened.

So it is my thought that God can only judge us based upon our real actions, and not simply knowledge as to what could have been. I have some other thoughts also on this issue, but what I have said here is probably enough.

Kurieuo

[madscientist]

I find Craig often makes sense once understood. I think he has got the predestination/free will issue right with the Molina position he advocates. It just clicks with me, and seems to make so much sense.

Ya i didnt have time to read it all. Maybe if i did it would make more snes.

OK if God chhooses the middle knowledge and judges us on what we do, does he aslo take into account what WOULD have happened if the world were differnet? Eg some time ago - lets say 3000 years ago 1 person decided to go to that town instead of that one and the whole world would look different today. And maybe there would be some people who would neever be born, and their souls wouldnt exist, or there would be people who would never had existed today if that and that hadnt happened. And maybe some people wouldnt do those sins or instead chose to accept Jesus Christ and be saved. Does God take this into account? Interested to haer your opinins/facts if you have any.

I remember too thinking about this. What if God actioned one of those other worlds where we did not come to Christ, or someone else did?

Exactly... unfair seems to be. If God loeves us all eqially then that shudnt happen. however nit quite sure tho. Seems like our life is just like that,.. some destined to be evil some destined to be good. I think is very true that personality is also a major issue, as some people are genetically nice, with good traits, while others inherit quite negative charactersistics. And what if a person who was evil because he/she had bad charactersistsc + personality had different? Would he/she be still as he/she was in reality?? HArsh question probably to which God only knwos answer.

I have seen it proposed that God places those whom He foreknows would choose Christ in the right time and situation. Such does not fit well with me, since I think it is very probable that one may choose Christ in one world while not in another.

Excellent propostition hwoever doenst seem to be true. Exactly as you said, one would choose christ in 1 worls and not in aother. Thats the unfairness... then we coudl say some people were born in christian famnilies and had good cnvironemtn etc than others where evil tends to be more common etc.

Yet, one could still choose to argue that our decisions will always ultimately be the same in every world. A further idea I believe Craig has put out, is that God chooses to activate the most optimum world, that is, the world where the most people would come to Him. If God actualises a foreknown world, it would make sense he would actualise the world where the most people would come to Him. This is all I believe would be required of God if He were good.

If then actions would be the same then this is either predesitnation or... i duno what. Seems very fair indeed, but what if i had different genetic info, other personality and diffeent traits, environment and so on? That would be different, as is seen today. People who live in good envireonment, with good people, christian educartion ARE MORE LIKELY to be good and be saved than those in opposite circumsyances. And if God actualises a world where most ppl get saved, yes, seems good, but then one may argue someone didnt get saved becuase someone else gor saved instead - or that for examplem becauuse 10 people would be saved if 1 person went to hell then that eprson going to hell could say that if those 10 were never born he'd go to heaven etc. HArd to explain what i mean - but i hope you kinda understand what i meant.

But... what about those other worlds were a person who rejects God in the current one, may have actually accepted Him in another? This question has some bite to it because it seems unfair that someone who is condemned because they lived out this world, would have been saved if they lived out another world under different circumstances. It is an issue I have thought much about.

Exactly what i am bothering with my whole life and the "Not everyone given same opportunity to do good/evil in life" thread - or the other where decisions of other people were dfifferent and now some people wouldnt gat saved or others who wouldnt get saved nromally would get saved. Thats just shocking and unfair but that what it sometimes seems to be.

One main thought I had in particular is that we can really only be judged on our actualised choices. If God could judge us as guilty based on His foreknowledge rather than reality, then He need not have created anything but the end result of the world. Yet, then how does He know who to create if no world has been actualised? Let us look past this issue for a moment, and assume that God could just create the end result of the world based on His foreknowledge. Now it seems odd that people would be judged righteous (in Christ) or condemned for actions which only existed in God's mind, specifically God's foreknowledge. Actions which they did not actually do. As such, a necessary condition when judging a person's actions appears to be that such a person actually does commit their actions in reality, and not only based upon knowledge even God's foreknowledge. If a necessary precondition of judgement is reality (what really happened) and not simply foreknowledge of what might have been, then God can only incorporate into His judgement what actually happened.

Yea... well God created this world even if he knew our actions coz it would be unjsut... thats what the G&S website - to which this forum belongs - said. And free will requires actually conscience, and without this world it would be inmpossible.[/quote]

[Turgonian]

About the question 'How much of God's will actually happens?', I'm reading an essay right now that discusses the two aspects of God's will: Are There Two Wills In God?

[LowlyOne]

Turgonian,

I am sure by now that you have read Piper's article on the idea of Two Wills in God. So with that in mind, here is a critique of Pipers article!

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=563

[madscientist]

hum... mayb be interesitn but ahvtn got time ton read it all. Anyway... duno wat to answer now but maybe if il rad the artucl. Id appreciate if someone could summarize it in a few sentences coz i realy havent got time now... Seems lkie too much to read though, and understand a swell.

[Turgonian]

So 'free will' is the will to choose either good or bad, is it?
Then God is the most enslaved being in the universe! He can't even lie... Boy, must He feel restricted.

And if He wants people to come to Him so badly, why does He allow such a lot of ignorance? Why not give people gentle, non-coercive pushes toward understanding the Bible and becoming Christian? After all, God is still in control of a person's life, isn't He?

Since you didn't like Piper, try John Hendryx and his Eleven Reasons to Reject Libertarian Free Will.

[Kurieuo]

So 'free will' is the will to choose either good or bad, is it?
Then God is the most enslaved being in the universe! He can't even lie... Boy, must He feel restricted.

I have not read everything preceding so am not taking sides... however to compare our choice between good (God's desire) and bad (going against God's desire), to God's being good (God's desire) or being bad (going against God's desire), in my opinion commits a category error. For we can go against God, but it makes no sense to say God can go against God. God can not choose to go against Himself, not because His free will is restricted, but rather because good is rooted in His nature it is nonsense to say that God can go against His own nature.

Kurieuo

[madscientist]

So 'free will' is the will to choose either good or bad, is it?
Then God is the most enslaved being in the universe! He can't even lie... Boy, must He feel restricted.

I have not read everything preceding so am not taking sides... however to compare our choice between good (God's desire) and bad (going against God's desire), to God's being good (God's desire) or being bad (going against God's desire), in my opinion commits a category error. For we can go against God, but it makes no sense to say God can go against God. God can not choose to go against Himself, not because His free will is restricted, but rather because good is rooted in His nature it is nonsense to say that God can go against His own nature.

Kurieuo

OK... so isnt God good in ature because he wants to be good? Doesnt god have free will? if not then were not in his image. Could god be evil if he chose to? If not then how could we thank him for love if love requires free will? If god could only be good and no evil then it wudnt be love really bcoz he only would do wats in his nature but really had no choice over it. ANd he cant go against his own nature, thats true. But how much thats got with his own will? he cant go against himself, and is not enslaved by us, thats definite. But he still allows free will...

[Kurieuo]

So 'free will' is the will to choose either good or bad, is it?
Then God is the most enslaved being in the universe! He can't even lie... Boy, must He feel restricted.

I have not read everything preceding so am not taking sides... however to compare our choice between good (God's desire) and bad (going against God's desire), to God's being good (God's desire) or being bad (going against God's desire), in my opinion commits a category error. For we can go against God, but it makes no sense to say God can go against God. God can not choose to go against Himself, not because His free will is restricted, but rather because good is rooted in His nature it is nonsense to say that God can go against His own nature.

Kurieuo

OK... so isnt God good in ature because he wants to be good? Doesnt god have free will? if not then were not in his image. Could god be evil if he chose to? If not then how could we thank him for love if love requires free will? If god could only be good and no evil then it wudnt be love really bcoz he only would do wats in his nature but really had no choice over it. ANd he cant go against his own nature, thats true. But how much thats got with his own will? he cant go against himself, and is not enslaved by us, thats definite. But he still allows free will...

God is the source of good. In saying good is a part of God's nature, I am making an ontological statement about God. Thus, God wanting to be good, is simply God wanting to be Himself. Given this, it can be said that anything which departs from God is less good to the point we would call it bad. Of course other Christians may choose to opt for a different perspective, but then if good and bad really do exist in an objective manner (for example, that rape, murder, or torturting others for fun really is bad no matter what anyone thinks), then it needs to be explained how they do.

Kurieuo

[LowlyOne]

And if He wants people to come to Him so badly, why does He allow such a lot of ignorance? Why not give people gentle, non-coercive pushes toward understanding the Bible and becoming Christian? After all, God is still in control of a person's life, isn't He?

These are good questions, and I will think about them!

Since you didn't like Piper, try John Hendryx and his Eleven Reasons to Reject Libertarian Free Will.

Who said I didn't like Piper? All I did was point you to a critique of his work, to see what you thought, and pehaps what others thought too.

[madscientist]

Havent posted for a long time... Hopeguly ill have somethogn useful to post. An i had some ideas and hope now i can put them donw here etc, 1 of whoch was the thing with murder or suicicde for xample. its said Killing is a sin becasue it violates gods will of when one shoudl die. But if a person takes someones life, wasnt it gods will after all that his life be taken?> o suicide etc. If someone commits suicide, wasnt it still gods will it happened? or murdere etc, sometimes it ends that its unsuccessful; then we tend to say "God spared his life, he didnt want him to die", but whrn it is successful wasnt it God who took his life by means of a murderer?

But there are times when God does not use this right because he intends for human evil to run its course. For example, God meant to put the sons of Eli to death. Therefore he willed that they not listen to their father's counsel: "Now Eli was very old; and he heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who served at the doorway of the tent of meeting. And he said to them, `Why do you do such things, the evil things that I hear from all these people? No, my sons; for the report is not good which I hear the Lord's people circulating. If one man sins against another, God will mediate for him; but if a man sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him?' But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for the Lord desired to put them to death" (1 Samuel 2:22-25).

Why would the sons of Eli not give heed to their father's good counsel? The answer of the text is "because the Lord desired to put them to death." This only makes sense if the Lord had the right and the power to restrain their disobedience—a right and power which he willed not to use. Thus we must say that in one sense God willed that the sons of Eli go on doing what he commanded them not to do: dishonoring their father and committing sexual immorality.

Moreover the word for "desired" in the clause, "the Lord desired to put them to death," is the same Hebrew word (haphez) used in Ezekiel 18:23,32 and 33:11 where God asserts that he does not desire the death of the wicked. God desired to put the sons of Eli to death, but he does not desire the death of the wicked. This is a strong warning to us not to take one assertion, like Ezekiel 18:23 and assume we know the precise meaning without letting other scripture like 1 Samuel 2:25 have a say. The upshot of putting the two together is that in one sense God may desire the death of the wicked and in another sense he may not.

Another illustration of God's choosing not to use his right to restrain evil is found in Romans 1:24-28. Three times Paul says that God hands people over (paredoken) to sink further into corruption. Verse 24: "God handed them over to the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves." Verse 26: "God handed them over to dishonorable passions." Verse 28: "And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to a base mind and to improper conduct." God has the right and the power to restrain this evil the way he did for Abimelech. But he did not will to do that. Rather his will in this case was to punish, and part of God's punishment on evil is sometimes willing that evil increase. But this means that God chooses for behavior to come about which he commands not to happen. The fact that God's willing is punitive does not change that. And the fact that it is justifiably punitive is one of the points of this chapter. There are other examples we could give, but we pass on to a different line of evidence.

I read the shocking article on God having 2 wills and some of it shocked me really. there was a thing where the hearts of israelties or someone (dont remember who xactly) should become hardened, ort that god willed some sons to die, the fact that they sinned etc was part of Gods will so can those people be blamned upon themselves? Had not God willed it to happen they would not have died or committed sin etc. Or that it haopoened coy it was Gods will only? Waht about free will? Does it mean "if God wills me to be saved i will, if he doenst there is no way for me to get saved>"
This was quite shocking as what God sometimes uses to kill people etc or wants them to do more evil.

We just saw that God "desired" to put the sons of Eli to death, and that the word for desire is the same one used in Ezekiel 18:23 when God says he does not "delight" in the death of the wicked. Another illustration of this complex desiring is found in Deuteronomy 28:63. Moses is warning of coming judgment on unrepentant Israel. What he says is strikingly different (not contradictory, I will argue) from Ezekiel 18:23. "And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you."

Here an even stronger word for joy is used (yasis) when it says that God will "take delight over you to cause you to perish and to destroy you." We are faced with the inescapable biblical fact that in some sense God does not delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18), and in some sense he does (Deuteronomy 28:63; 2 Samuel 2:25).

This is shockinf too - that God actially delights in punishment of wocked. i THINk in some other thread or somewhere i read God does nNOT wish the wicked to die and be punsihed eternally and he isnt happy about them suffering, but this says otehrwise. Shouldnt he "feel sorry" for those souls who rejected him, if HIS LOVE IS UNCONDITIONAL AND INFINITE? Doenst this include the wicked? Does God love still those who refused him?

[Turgonian]

For we can go against God, but it makes no sense to say God can go against God. God can not choose to go against Himself, not because His free will is restricted, but rather because good is rooted in His nature it is nonsense to say that God can go against His own nature.

Wasn't Adam's nature completely good before the Fall? Eating the forbidden fruit would have been against his nature. However, what I was saying comes down to this: human freedom in the Bible is servitude toward God and neighbour. Jesus loves to restrict us for our own good, yet in the Bible it says He will make us free.

Who said I didn't like Piper? All I did was point you to a critique of his work, to see what you thought, and pehaps what others thought too.

Sorry, I reacted too quickly.

But if a person takes someones life, wasnt it gods will after all that his life be taken?> o suicide etc. If someone commits suicide, wasnt it still gods will it happened? or murdere etc, sometimes it ends that its unsuccessful; then we tend to say "God spared his life, he didnt want him to die", but whrn it is successful wasnt it God who took his life by means of a murderer?

No, the murderer took the life. However, the murderer was 1) going against God's expressed will = doing evil, and 2) acting within God's plan. God is not to be blamed for murder, but He will turn evil to good. He will actually decree evil to happen (although evildoers remain completely responsible) so that greater good may result. He is omniscient; we are not.

I read the shocking article on God having 2 wills and some of it shocked me really. there was a thing where the hearts of israelties or someone (dont remember who xactly) should become hardened, ort that god willed some sons to die, the fact that they sinned etc was part of Gods will so can those people be blamned upon themselves? Had not God willed it to happen they would not have died or committed sin etc.

That's right. However, God never forced them to sin. He simply 'gave them over to their lusts'. Yes, He could have prevented them, but He did not. Why not? For good reasons. We do not know those, but we do know the character of God and we know He will not allow pointless evil.

Waht about free will? Does it mean "if God wills me to be saved i will, if he doenst there is no way for me to get saved"?

That's right. However, God has never turned down a sinner who sincerely came to Him. If God doesn't want to save people, they don't really want God to save them either.

i THINk in some other thread or somewhere i read God does nNOT wish the wicked to die and be punsihed eternally and he isnt happy about them suffering, but this says otehrwise. Shouldnt he "feel sorry" for those souls who rejected him, if HIS LOVE IS UNCONDITIONAL AND INFINITE? Doenst this include the wicked? Does God love still those who refused him?

God does not desire the death of the wicked, but that they should turn to Him and live. But when they refuse His offer and refuse the painful sacrifice of His Son, His wrath rests upon them. 'Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.' God is wrathful with the unholy people of Hell.
This is not as bad as it sounds. Think of the devils. They inflicted much evil on other people, and they have to suffer for that. God does not love them. The same thing goes for the wicked.
BTW, 'love' and 'hate' in the Bible aren't about feelings, but about actions. God shows 'love' to the wicked on earth in letting the sun rise for them and offering them salvation. God-fearing people (like King David) said thet experienced God's 'hate' or 'wrath' because God withheld His blessings.

[Kurieuo]

For we can go against God, but it makes no sense to say God can go against God. God can not choose to go against Himself, not because His free will is restricted, but rather because good is rooted in His nature it is nonsense to say that God can go against His own nature.

Wasn't Adam's nature completely good before the Fall? Eating the forbidden fruit would have been against his nature. However, what I was saying comes down to this: human freedom in the Bible is servitude toward God and neighbour. Jesus loves to restrict us for our own good, yet in the Bible it says He will make us free.

In what way do you believe he was completely good? Certainly without sin, but once Adam and Eve sinned it revealed they may have only been "good" or "very good" as God declared when He created them. Innate perfection is something we can really only attribute to God. Furthermore, mankind are contingent beings and therefore any innate good within them must be drawn from their source - God, who is not contingent and who is therefore the source of our good.

Kurieuo