Free Will vs Divine Providence

[giantsdodie]

I believe that its very simple. Within God's providence he created man with the ability to choose. Why did God do this? Because God wanted man to have the ability to CHOOSE to love Him.

Good Artcle from carm.org

If God knows our free will choices, do we still have free will?
I've always been puzzled by the notion held by some people that if God knows what we are going to choose in the future, then we don't really have free will. They say that if God knows we are going to make a certain "free will" choice, then when it is time for us to make that choice, because God knows what we are going to choose, we are not really free to make a different choice and God's foreknowledge means we cannot have free will. Quite honestly, I do not see this as being a problem at all. Let's work with the idea that we are free will creatures and that God knows all things, even our future choices. Furthermore, let's define free will in the Open Theist sense as the ability to make equal choices between options, regardless of a person's sinful nature.1 Given these conditions, are God's omniscience and our free will incompatible as the Open Theists claim?

Analogy
By analogy, knowing what will happen does not mean that we are preventing or causing that thing to happen. The sun will rise tomorrow. I am not causing it to rise nor am I preventing it from rising by knowing that it will happen. Likewise, if I put a bowl of ice-cream and a bowl of cauliflower in front of my child, I know for a fact which one is chosen, the ice cream. My knowing it ahead of time does not restrict my child from making a free choice when the time comes. My child is free to make a choice and knowing the choice has no effect upon her when she makes it.

Logic
Logically, God knowing what we are going to do does not mean that we can't do something else. It means that God simply knows what we have chosen to do ahead of time. Our freedom is not restricted by God's foreknowledge; our freedom is simply realized ahead of time by God. In this, our natural ability to make another choice has not been removed anymore than my choice of what to write inside the parenthesis (hello) was removed by God who knew I would put the word "hello" in the parentheses before the universe was made. Before typing the word "hello," I pondered which word to write. My pondering was my doing and the choice was mine. How then was I somehow restricted in freedom when choosing what to write if God knew what I was going to do? No matter what choice we freely make can be known by God and His knowing it doesn't mean we aren't making a free choice.

Time
Part of the issue here is the nature of time. If the future exists for God even as the present does, then God is consistently in all places at all times and is not restricted by time. This would mean that time was not a part of His nature to which God is subject, and that God is not a linear entity; that is, it would mean that God is not restricted to operating in our time realm and is not restricted to the present only. If God is not restricted to existence in the present, our present, then the future is known by God because God indwells the future as well as the present (and the past). This would mean that our future choices, as free as they are, are simply known by God. Again, our ability to choose is not altered or lessened by God existing in the future an knowing what we freely choose. It just means that God can see what we will freely choose -- because that is what we freely choose -- and know what it is.

Part of the problem in Open Theism is that by restricting God to the present only, His existence is defined in such a way as to imply that time is part of His nature and that He is restricted to it. The question is whether or not this is logical as well as biblical. For an analysis of the logic of the position, please see A logical refutation of open theism.

Scripture
Scripturally, God inhabits eternity. Psalm 90:2 says, "Before the mountains were born, or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God." But this verses, an others, do not declare that God lives inside or outside of time. Rather, the Bible tells us that God is eternal. We can, however, note that the Bible teaches that God has no beginning or end. This is not definitive, but we may be able to conclude that since time is that non-spatial, continuous succession of events from the past, through the present, and into the future, and that since the word "beginning" denotes a relationship to and in time, and since God has no beginning, that time is not applicable to God's nature. In other words, God has no beginning and since "beginning" deals with an event in time, God is outside of time.

Nevertheless, the scriptures are not definitive on this issue and we can only conclude what it does say; namely, that God is eternal, without beginning, without end, and that He can accurately and precisely predict what will happen.

"As for you, O king, while on your bed your thoughts turned to what would take place in the future; and He who reveals mysteries has made known to you what will take place," (Dan. 2:29).

So, in relation to our free will and God's predictive ability, there is no biblical reason to assert that God's foreknowledge negates our freedom.

Conclusion
There is no logical reason to claim that if God knows what choices we are going to make that it means we are not free. It still means that the free choices we will make are free -- they are just known ahead of time by God. If we choose something different, then that choice will have been eternally known by God. Furthermore, this knowledge by God does not alter our nature in that it does not change what we are, free to make choices. God's knowledge is necessarily complete and exhaustive because that is His nature to know all things. In fact, since He has eternally known what all our free choices will be, He has ordained history to come to the conclusion that He wishes including and incorporating our choices into His divine plan: “For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur," (Acts 4:27-28). Why because God always knows all things: "..God is greater than our heart, and knows all things," (1 John 3:20).

[anointedteacher]

Feb 23, 2009 4:43:01 GMT -5 nina2 said:

I am not about to read a book (articles too long) on a doctrine that is far from my belief.... which is the Calvinist(sp) mindset.... Freewill is a gift from God to mankind.... We have the ability to choose... period.

I really think, for what it's worth, that this is exactly why it is so difficult to have a meaningful discussion about any topic, truly

Because, the truth of the matter is that nobody has to read anything or participate in anything. We do choose for that too.

If the articles are too long, then how relevant is that anyway? Anybody who is remotely interested in something can read in diagonale, and again, if it's of no interest, just leave it alone..

Also, imho, we (general) should not always be in such a hurry to label and tag what ever we perceive to be said, and try to go beyond what is actually said.

Yes, Spurgeon was a calvinist, and it shows, obviously. Again, there is no obligation upon anybody to read or to get into it at all. Personally, it's not to a doctrine that I hold on to.

Finally, at least to me, when it comes to any discussion, it never matters to me who has the last word, and my purpose is never to be that one.

I am and have always been an avid learner, and a passionate seeker. I do believe that we are supposed to learn, all the time, and I am convinced that, God forbid, should I ever stop learning, then there would be no reason to keep on.

So, "we have the ability to choose... period" as in "...the end" (?), and that's exactly what it is.

nina2, I am sorry for offending you... It wasn"t my intention... I have read so much articles on so many topics... I just read a few lines and knew the writer is a Calvinist... Most of them don't believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit or Spiritual Gifts or anything... and it is just dry.... I depend on the Holy Spirit to be my teacher and to lead me into ALL TRUTH. I guard my spirit (heart) and is careful of what I allow to come into it....

[And Such Were Some Of You]

Hi Nina,

I agree with you...we are never at the point where we can stop learning. God forbid!!! There have been times in which I thought one thing but due to deeper study on a matter found that I didn't know as much as I thought about the subject.

My point of saying that I wasn't reading the long post was that I really would rather know which part of the article stuck out to you and why - then we can discuss because it is with you that I wish to discuss the matter with and not just comment on an article.

Also, I don't just throw something out because it is a Calvinist speaking. I have actually learned so much from someone professing Calvinism and due to my discussions with them it caused me to hit the Word even harder. To say or even imply that once I know that a Calvinist is speaking or wrote a particular article then I will not read is to throw the baby out with the bath water.

AT, for the record, just because some Calvinist do not believe in the works and gifts of the Spirit does not mean you cannot glean something from what they are teaching/saying. You may not know it but there are some on this board who are Calvinist and yet you commune with them. And for the record, I lean towards Calvinism myself so is that to say you no longer wish to speak with me? I just don't label myself a Calvinist as I don't feel it is biblical to do so. I am a Christian!

So my apologies Nina if it seemed that I didn't want to discuss, because I do.

Blessings,

Monica (ASWSOY)

[nina2]

AT, dear Sister, you did not offend me.... I do understand where you are coming from, and I know that the Lord deals with each of us differently, because he did not make clones and I like - actually enjoy - our differences as well as what we have in common...

ASWSOY, thank you for taking the time to explain, and those sermons were long :-)
Aside from everything else re denominations, Spurgeon unique style and passion truly for the cross and the work that Jesus came to do, and did, always rekindles any dying amber in my soul and spirit...
And, among other things, I do love the way he addresses his congregation as his "flock" and the humble spirit he kept through it all. And it is not always obvious in some assemblies nowadays...

In the second sermon I mentioned, Spurgeon says:

"And, then, lastly, we find that as the purchase of the death of Christ there is a Church, and that Church is sent forth into the world with orders to bless it and to do good unto all men.
It is bidden to go forth as a light in the midst of darkness; it is bidden so to live as to be the salt of the whole earth.
Now, we say that each one of these blessings is no small gift from God to man—no mean result of the death of our Master; and, combined, we think they would form a boon worthy of a God; and, as we put our hand upon it, we think we can give a full and true expression, and with an emphasis surpassed by none, to that glorious text—"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son." And we think, upon our system, and upon ours alone, we can give full truthfulness and emphasis to the remainder—"That whosoever believeth in him shall have everlasting life."

Then, he goes on to "define" redemption and mentions:

"He took the place, the room, and stead of the church, and then all that he was worth went in that church's place and stead. More he could not do, if he had taken the place of the whole world.
But, you ask me, is there any limit to the atonement at all? I say I think there is; and the limit seems to be, not in the value, but in the purpose. The limit seems to be this theory—for whom did he die? in whose place and stead did he stand? If he stood in the place and stead of the whole world, then he made atonement for the sins of the whole world, and the whole world will be saved. If he stood in the place and stead of his Church, then he made atonement for his Church, and the whole Church will be saved. We believe that Christ took the place and stead of every believer, that the believer's sin was put on him, and thus the ex-sinner can go forth free."

And:

"And now as to the persons redeemed—who are they? The Church, we say, whether you look at the Church as elect from all eternity, or the Church believing in time, or the Church as glorified hereafter. We look at them all as one, and we say these are the redeemed, these are they for whom redemption has been procured. We cannot add to their number, we cannot diminish them; for we believe that those whom God foreknew, he did predestinate; that those whom he did predestinate, he also called: for whom he calls he justifies, for whom he justifies he also glorifies; the whole are one,—and for these redemption has been made."

The sermon concludes with:

"I hear some one saying, "But by that, sir, you surely must limit God's love." I reply, is God loving when he punishes any and doth not save all? Then is he loving also when he purposes to do that, for whatever justifies the deed justifies the purpose which gives the morality to the deed. And then I hear another objection—"How can you, sir, upon that theory, go to preach the Gospel unto every creature?" You have heard that answered—we have got the order; but, I reply yet further: I could not go and preach the Gospel upon any other theory, for I dare not go on that fool's errand of preaching a redemption that might not redeem, and declaring a salvation that might not save. I could not go and say to a man, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." And he would answer me, "Do you think you are going to heaven?" "Yes." "Why?" "Because Christ died for me." "But he died for us all, and my chances therefore are as good as yours." And he might reply to me after he had accepted my declaration, and after he had believed, and begun to rejoice, after all he might say, "Is there any real reason why I should rejoice, some for whom Christ died are in hell, and I may also go there. I cannot begin to rejoice in your news till I feel myself in glory. It is rather a faulty piece of good news, because it is nothing positive; it is a grand uncertainty you have proclaimed to me."
Now, what we preach, is the Gospel to every creature, and that we take to be this—If you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ you shall be saved; if you do not, you will be lost, and lost for ever. You are not redeemed—you are not saved,—there is not, in another word, salvation and redemption for those who are lost for ever. But we add, "We are what we are by Divine grace; we have believed; if you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ you will be as we are—will be able to boast as we do, humbly in the Lord our God;" or in other words—If you believe, and are baptized, you will be saved; if you do not believe, you will be lost, and lost for ever."

(sorry, even the excerpts are long.. :-)

That last part is the big picture, and the questions that come before his ending answer are still asked today, by many. And even some believers, at some points, wonder if they are saved once and for all or not, etc... And, still today, to whom do people who search ask those questions, if/when they do?
They may come to us, and we (all of us) have to be equipped to answer...

One of the reasons why I feel this is important now is also because there is a "whole lot of shaking going on", worldwide, and things that people put their faith into, are just literally vanishing and causing a lot of despair. Some will look down and some will look up, they will look for answers.

Giants, thank you for also taking the time to post the article (I also visited the site..)

I read the article, but your introduction said it best:

"I believe that its very simple. Within God's providence he created man with the ability to choose. Why did God do this? Because God wanted man to have the ability to CHOOSE to love Him."

It is not just the ability to choose, but the ability to choose to love Him.

As YBrown posted also: "I think because it’s a question that we (or the enemy) devised and not actually a question that God inspired and/or not one we can get outside of relationship with Him. "

[krazeeboi]

Feb 21, 2009 13:41:01 GMT -5 giantsdodie said:

Then how do you reconcile the scripture which says that it is His desire than NONE should perish but that ALL MEN come to repentance....

All men DO NOT come to repentance...

So it seems that God is even more committed to something other than all men coming to repentance. There is something out there that God values more than that. I don't think that "something" is man's will though.

[krazeeboi]

Feb 23, 2009 10:16:10 GMT -5 anointedteacher said:

nina2, I am sorry for offending you... It wasn"t my intention... I have read so much articles on so many topics... I just read a few lines and knew the writer is a Calvinist... Most of them don't believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit or Spiritual Gifts or anything... and it is just dry.... I depend on the Holy Spirit to be my teacher and to lead me into ALL TRUTH. I guard my spirit (heart) and is careful of what I allow to come into it....

And therein lies our issue as Pentecostals/Charismatics: we automatically assume that if people aren't jumping, dancing, frothing at the mouth, falling out, etc. that they have absolutely no spiritual insight, no experience with the Spirit of God, etc. And that's as wrong as can be.

And there are many, many Calvinists out there who do embrace spiritual gifts, etc.

Judge what's written by how it lines up with Scripture, not based on a theological label.

[Nikkol]

Mar 6, 2009 23:29:37 GMT -5 krazeeboi said:

And there are many, many Calvinists out there who do embrace spiritual gifts, etc.

;D ;D ;D

[krazeeboi]

One objection that falls short makes much of the "conflict" between God's sovereignty and man's free will. I personally don't see the tremendous conflict. I think God can be sovereign and fulfill His purposes even though we act freely. One thing that allows Him to do that is His omniscience.

Consider the objection: "If God is sovereign, guaranteeing certain outcomes in people's lives, then there is no free will." This is flawed thinking. It doesn't follow that if God is in full control, then free acts are not possible. What is critical here is the way in which God is in control, the method He uses to guarantee the outcomes. Let me illustrate.

How would you catch a criminal who is on the run? Well, you'd think about where he might go, then you'd try to be there to intercept him. Now, if you had perfect knowledge--if you knew everything-- you'd not only know where he is at any given moment, but where he'll be at any moment in the future. You'd know exactly what time he'd arrive at any point along his entire route.

Would you be able to catch a criminal if you knew the exact moves he was going to make? If you knew the things he was going to freely choose to do--and this is important--at any given point, would you be able to catch him? Sure you could.

If you know he's going down a particular road and will come around a particular corner at a particular time, you could place your men there so that when he takes the route he freely chooses (though known by you), your men would be right there to nab him. You're in control the entire time--you're sovereign. You're able to be in control because you know every move he's going to freely make. Therefore, your plan can be perfectly executed, even though he's making his free choices.

This illustration shows that God can be completely sovereign in that He controls all final outcomes, yet human beings could still make free choices. I think there is more to God's sovereignty than described here--I think He does control our specific choices in some ways--but most of our choices are free, yet God is in control. He knows enough about our free choices to work out a plan that will encompass all our free choices and still accomplish His purposes.

www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5130

[anointedteacher]

Mar 6, 2009 23:29:37 GMT -5 krazeeboi said:

Feb 23, 2009 10:16:10 GMT -5 anointedteacher said:

nina2, I am sorry for offending you... It wasn"t my intention... I have read so much articles on so many topics... I just read a few lines and knew the writer is a Calvinist... Most of them don't believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit or Spiritual Gifts or anything... and it is just dry.... I depend on the Holy Spirit to be my teacher and to lead me into ALL TRUTH. I guard my spirit (heart) and is careful of what I allow to come into it....

And therein lies our issue as Pentecostals/Charismatics: we automatically assume that if people aren't jumping, dancing, frothing at the mouth, falling out, etc. that they have absolutely no spiritual insight, no experience with the Spirit of God, etc. And that's as wrong as can be.

And there are many, many Calvinists out there who do embrace spiritual gifts, etc.

Judge what's written by how it lines up with Scripture, not based on a theological label.

I know you are one of them.... krazy ppl

[krazeeboi]