God's permissive will?

[Neostarwcc]

Where do people get the idea of a "permissive" will of God? How does this affect how God runs things?

Isn't everything that happens according to God's perfect and Holy will? If there was a permissive will of God than not only would God not be sovereign over all things but it implys that God has a perfect will but somehow man is powerful enough to break God's perfect will and can break his perfect will by God merely "allowing" x to happen?

The Bible says that God is sovereign over all things. To me adding a permissive will to God's perfect will elevates mankind over God's will. But, I'm mostly curious about this phenomenon.

 

[tonychanyt]

Isn't everything that happens according to God's perfect and Holy will?

When people talk about the will of God. It actually has 4 different meanings. The will of God: What does it mean?. The confusion comes when people conflate them.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Where do people get the idea of a "permissive" will of God? How does this affect how God runs things?

Isn't everything that happens according to God's perfect and Holy will? If there was a permissive will of God than not only would God not be sovereign over all things but it implys that God has a perfect will but somehow man is powerful enough to break God's perfect will and can break his perfect will by God merely "allowing" x to happen?

The Bible says that God is sovereign over all things. To me adding a permissive will to God's perfect will elevates mankind over God's will. But, I'm mostly curious about this phenomenon.

Some people want to keep their notion of God. So they go way out of their way to make his purposes make sense to them. They find themselves excusing him from having anything to do with what he has purposed to come to pass.

 

[bling]

Where do people get the idea of a "permissive" will of God? How does this affect how God runs things?

Isn't everything that happens according to God's perfect and Holy will? If there was a permissive will of God than not only would God not be sovereign over all things but it implys that God has a perfect will but somehow man is powerful enough to break God's perfect will and can break his perfect will by God merely "allowing" x to happen?

The Bible says that God is sovereign over all things. To me adding a permissive will to God's perfect will elevates mankind over God's will. But, I'm mostly curious about this phenomenon.

It is God's desire and will to allow man some very limited autonomous free will, so man can Love like God Loves, but man of his own free will not accepting God's help is not God's desire, but His will is to allow it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It is God's desire and will to allow man some very limited autonomous free will, so man can Love like God Loves, but man of his own free will not accepting God's help is not God's desire, but His will is to allow it.

Can you disprove that "allow[ing] man some very limited autonomous free will" is not logically self-contradictory, if God is First Cause?

Logically, all things are caused, except first cause. You are trying to say otherwise.

Here's a pretty good description of the various ways the idea of "The Will of God" is used in scripture, or at least, of what humans mean when they talk about it. To say that "God's will" is always and only the same meaning is vacuous.

 

[NBB]

not everything is Gods will, that is saying that men sin is God will and thats is not ok.

 

[Fervent]

You're asking a secondary question, the primary question is whether what you believe is required for God to be "sovereign" is the same as what entails Biblical sovereignty.

 

[Mark Quayle]

not everything is Gods will, that is saying that men sin is God will and thats is not ok.

Here's a pretty good description of the various ways the idea of "The Will of God" is used in scripture, or at least, of what humans mean when they talk about it. To say that "God's will" is always and only the same meaning is vacuous.

 

[bling]

Can you disprove that "allow[ing] man some very limited autonomous free will" is not logically self-contradictory, if God is First Cause?

Logically, all things are caused, except first cause. You are trying to say otherwise.

Here's a pretty good description of the various ways the idea of "The Will of God" is used in scripture, or at least, of what humans mean when they talk about it. To say that "God's will" is always and only the same meaning is vacuous.

Yes! We have been in this discussion before. There is not just a onetime first cause, God as a first causer must interact daily with us causing things to happen that would not happen if He did not make the change. The question is: why can't God allow man to make or not make some of these "changes" which He allows to go either way with man making the free will choice.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes! We have been in this discussion before. There is not just a onetime first cause, God as a first causer must interact daily with us causing things to happen that would not happen if He did not make the change. The question is: why can't God allow man to make or not make some of these "changes" which He allows to go either way with man making the free will choice.

God as First Cause does not mean he does not interact daily! Maybe that is why some people like, "Uncaused Causer", better than, "First Cause". But "First Cause" is not a merely deistic notion. It is an indicator of position on a logical sequence —cause and effect— and no reference to time passage.

You say, "The question is: why can't God allow man to make or not make some of these "changes" which He allows to go either way with man making the free will choice." And I say, He does! In fact, he not only allows man to constantly make (or not make) these "changes" according to the free will choices of man, but man does so according to the decree of God.

You, as before, reinterpret what I say to mean something it does not. Logically, all things are caused, except First Cause.


BUT: Your words there, I agree to. Your use of them, not so much. You say, "...to go either way", by which you mean, "it is not pre-determined which way they go". But it most certainly is determined.

You can't show me any time that things have gone more than only the way that they have gone. Nor can you show, except by conjecture, that they ever will go more than only the way that they will go. So how can you say that they could have? You don't know that! All you know is that that is the way you think. You do choose, between what you take for possible paths/options. But your choice will always be whatever option God already decreed to come to pass.

And yes, don't even bother to go to the many many passages where God places the choice before man to make, and not only that, but names the contingencies as to what is going to happen, depending on which choice is made. That does not imply that God has not already determined what the choice will be. We've already been through that supposed evidence that God leaves anything up to chance.

There is no such thing as chance.

 

[hislegacy]

If Gods will is ALWAYS done, why did Jesus tell His disciples to pray that His will be done on earth as it is in heaven?

 

[Mark Quayle]

If Gods will is ALWAYS done, why did Jesus tell His disciples to pray that His will be done on earth as it is in heaven?

God's decree is always done. God's command is not always done. Both are "his will".

But if you can't go with the notion that they are the same word referring to two (or more) meanings (or uses), notice that God accomplishes his decree by the use of means. That includes our prayers and our choices.

 

[Fervent]

God as First Cause does not mean he does not interact daily! Maybe that is why some people like, "Uncaused Causer", better than, "First Cause". But "First Cause" is not a merely deistic notion. It is an indicator of position on a logical sequence —cause and effect— and no reference to time passage.

You say, "The question is: why can't God allow man to make or not make some of these "changes" which He allows to go either way with man making the free will choice." And I say, He does! In fact, he not only allows man to constantly make (or not make) these "changes" according to the free will choices of man, but man does so according to the decree of God.

You, as before, reinterpret what I say to mean something it does not. Logically, all things are caused, except First Cause.


BUT: Your words there, I agree to. Your use of them, not so much. You say, "...to go either way", by which you mean, "it is not pre-determined which way they go". But it most certainly is determined.

You can't show me any time that things have gone more than only the way that they have gone. Nor can you show, except by conjecture, that they ever will go more than only the way that they will go. So how can you say that they could have? You don't know that! All you know is that that is the way you think. You do choose, between what you take for possible paths/options. But your choice will always be whatever option God already decreed to come to pass.

And yes, don't even bother to go to the many many passages where God places the choice before man to make, and not only that, but names the contingencies as to what is going to happen, depending on which choice is made. That does not imply that God has not already determined what the choice will be. We've already been through that supposed evidence that God leaves anything up to chance.

There is no such thing as chance.

It seems to me that you're imposing an unjustified a priori causative structure and then filtering theology through that lens, rather than begining with what God has revealed and accepting it as is tensions and all.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It seems to me that you're imposing an unjustified a priori causative structure and then filtering theology through that lens, rather than begining with what God has revealed and accepting it as is tensions and all.

If that means that I'm unwilling to accept the notion that God does not make sense, you are right. But if that means that I'm unwilling to accept the notion that God has to make sense TO ME, you are wrong.

The supposed tension is in the human mind —not in fact. God makes perfect sense. But we are ignorant, blind and presumptuous.

 

[Fervent]

If that means that I'm unwilling to accept the notion that God does not make sense, you are right. But if that means that I'm unwilling to accept the notion that God has to make sense TO ME, you are wrong.

The supposed tension is in the human mind —not in fact. God makes perfect sense. But we are ignorant, blind and presumptuous.

It's not about making sense or not making sense, but what God has chosen to leave unresolved. The tensions come from the text of Scripture themselves, which presents man as possessing some degree of freedom and God's will being irrevocable. To break in either direction is to impose something foreign onto the texts and to depart a Biblical theology.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It's not about making sense or not making sense, but what God has chosen to leave unresolved. The tensions come from the text of Scripture themselves, which presents man as possessing some degree of freedom and God's will being irrevocable. To break in either direction is to impose something foreign onto the texts and to depart a Biblical theology.

Again, that depends on what you mean by freedom. The two are not merely compatible; they are the freedom as God decreed.

The tensions come from OUR read of the text. And that, too, as God decreed !)

 

[Fervent]

Again, that depends on what you mean by freedom. The two are not merely compatible; they are the freedom as God decreed.

The tensions come from OUR read of the text. And that, too, as God decreed !)

Freedom is freedom, independent uncoerced action. You're slipping into imposing a priori's again.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Freedom is freedom, independent uncoerced action. You're slipping into imposing a priori's again.

Free to do what? Independent how? We're not talking about 'coerced'. A person's inclination —what they most want to do at that moment of decision— is what they always choose to do.

Let me give you an example of "coerced": A gun held to your head, you still decide to do what you are most inclined to do under the circumstances. Thus, 'coerced' is irrelevant to our discussion. But the fact it came to your mind shows your self-deterministic mindset. A priori.

When I say I believe in free will, I mean that I believe a person can choose (and in fact always does choose) to do what they want. But when the self-deterministic says, "free will", he means he is a small first cause; that while truly influenced, he nevertheless is able to make uncaused choices.

But, except for First Cause, ALL things are caused, being effects of First Cause. Your choices are caused.

 

[Fervent]

Free to do what? Independent how? We're not talking about 'coerced'. A person's inclination —what they most want to do at that moment of decision— is what they always choose to do.

Let me give you an example of "coerced": A gun held to your head, you still decide to do what you are most inclined to do under the circumstances. Thus, 'coerced' is irrelevant to our discussion. But the fact it came to your mind shows your self-deterministic mindset. A priori.

When I say I believe in free will, I mean that I believe a person can choose (and in fact always does choose) to do what they want. But when the self-deterministic says, "free will", he means he is a small first cause; that while truly influenced, he nevertheless is able to make uncaused choices.

But, except for First Cause, ALL things are caused, being effects of First Cause. Your choices are caused.

You're applying a causal structure on the Bible that isn't found within it, and defining free will in a way that isn't actually free will. Essentially you are claiming that God is incapable of creating truly free beings, based on a philosophical construct you insist must be so.

 

[RDKirk]

It is God's desire and will to allow man some very limited autonomous free will, so man can Love like God Loves, but man of his own free will not accepting God's help is not God's desire, but His will is to allow it.

If it's "very limited," it's not "free."

I'm not a subscriber, btw, to "free will." I believe we are limited to a single choice that God permits.