How to reconcile God's plan with freewill?

[dazed]

I get the God's Grand Plan.

In Because God is Real, Peter Kreeft explained that Dazed is here because God planned the whole thing 6000 years ago. He protected Dazed's ancestors through famines and various evil doers, created meeting opportunities so they procreated. Even though Dazed's ancestors never heard of Him till a few hundred years ago. The author went on and on with other examples of God's micro management skills. Basically, nothing was left to chance.

I get the Freewill part too.

Later in the book, the author mentioned that God is so loving that He won't interfere with our freewill. Even the freewill to do evils. 200 million dead Chinese and Russians, 6 million gassed Jews etc. because the loving God didn't want to interfere with the evil doers' freewill. Now God is a laissez faire manager. The author spent just a minute or two on this.

So, which is one is correct?

If God is a great micro manager, there would not be evil, unless He planned them.

If God is a laissez-fair manager, He can't control the outcomes, ie. not a Great Planner.

 

[Zoness]

Interested to see the upcoming Arminian vs. Calvinist debate.

 

[seeking Christ]

If God is a great micro manager, there would not be evil, unless He planned them.

If God is a laissez-fair manager, He can't control the outcomes, ie. not a Great Planner.

False dilemma. God gave man dominion, yet retains sovereignty. THAT, is greatness.

 

[Zoness]

False dilemma. God gave man dominion, yet retains sovereignty. THAT, is greatness.

So which is truest in the Christian faith, Arminianism or five-point Calvinism? Or something else? I see this as one of the biggest debates on this forum.

 

[seeking Christ]

^ ^ I see that as a false dichotomy. What makes either one of them right?

 

[Zoness]

^ ^ I see that as a false dichotomy. What makes either one of them right?

Nothing, it IS a false dichotomy. But that doesn't stop it from being one of the most debated concepts in Protestantism; even though likeliness has it that both are wrong.

 

[Radagast]

So, which is one is correct?

Both. Christians believe both in free will (in some form) and in predestination (in some form). The details vary between Thomist, Calvinist, Molinist, etc.

 

[seeking Christ]

Sign me up for etc

 

[Arthra]

God is so loving that He won't interfere with our freewill. Even the freewill to do evils. 200 million dead Chinese and Russians, 6 million gassed Jews etc. because the loving God didn't want to interfere with the evil doers' freewill. Now God is a laissez faire manager. The author spent just a minute or two on this.

Not a Christian here but my belief is that mankind does have freedom to choose and without such freedom of choice there can be no responsibility for the criminal acts outlined above...

There have been warnings going back at least to the nineteenth century and early twentieth century that the mass killings described above could happen and generally they were ignored...

Immanuel Kant:
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm

Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri, Baha'u'llah:

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Summons of the Lord of Hosts

Leo Tolstoy:

The government assures the people that they are in danger from the invasion of another nation, or from foes in their midst, and that the only way to escape this danger is by the slavish obedience of the people to their government. This fact is seen most prominently during revolutions and dictatorships, but it exists always and everywhere that the power of the government exists. Every government explains its existence, and justifies its deeds of violence, by the argument that if it did not exist the condition of things would be very much worse. After assuring the people of its danger the government subordinates it to control, and when in this condition compels it to attack some other nation. And thus the assurance of the government is corroborated in the eyes of the people, as to the danger of attack from other nations.

 

[elopez]

So, which is one is correct?

I see this question as nothing more than a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be either or. It could be both. There is the Sovereignty of God co - existing with human responsibility.

If God is a great micro manager, there would not be evil, unless He planned them.

God prohibits evil. The Sovereignty of God is in relation to that which God decrees to happen without creation from eternity, that which will happen by necessity. Not necessarily by necessity of said knowledge, but due to the acts and desires of behavior of humanity.

If God is a laissez-fair manager, He can't control the outcomes, ie. not a Great Planner.

When it comes to the revealed will of God, it can be disrupted. The revealed will of God is a command He has given directly to mankind, for example, in the Garden with A&E. Though they could choose to disobey that command, that doesn't mean God lacks Sovereignty in the above sense, or that God isn't omnipotent.

 

[seeking Christ]

I agree with the above, but posit that using "omnipotent" in this sense will be confusing to the un-indoctrinated. Clearly there are limits placed upon that power; limits God Himself imposed, but still.

 

[Zoness]

Even if we have free will to make decisions, at least some aspects of our lives are held down by determinism from very basic concepts of identity: Gender, birth location, living conditions, upbringing, financial well being, health etc.

These things alone at least partially influence choices we make in our lives; I don't accept that humans have ABSOLUTE free will, I think we are products of our environment more than we like to admit.

 

[ghetsemane]

I just registered and this discussion caught my eye. So, my two cents are: If God knows everything, it follows that He doesn't need to micro manage. He simply knows the end from the beginning. Furthermore, if we can agree He is literally the father of our spirits (see Hebrews) that means He knows our tendencies, reactions, possible decisions in face of any situation. Just like a parent knows his child, only on a perfect way, since He is Perfect. Plus, being perfect, He must have a perfect plan for His children, therefore, nothing is left to chance. Furthermore, being perfect as He is, He does not want His children to be simply robots, He wants His children to become like He is (see NT when Christs commands us to be perfect like unto our Father which is in heaven) on their on volition, hence the free will He has endowed mankind with.

Thus, nothing that happens on this earth is outside His knowledge and consent and is allowed to happen so long it is inside the parameters of His established plan and for the accomplishment of that plan as tragic as it may seem. Since He commanded men to be perfect like unto Himself (see Matthew), it follows that when man does what He has commanded, in other words, acts according to His will (towards that perfection), then everything that happens to him/her will be accounted for his/her as good in the end (see Job).

It is important to note that that perfection is only possible because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Man can't reach the " stature of Christ, a perfect man" (please see Ephesians) without the Atonement, which is part of that plan for man.

ghetsemane

 

[seeking Christ]

Even if we have free will to make decisions, at least some aspects of our lives are held down by determinism from very basic concepts of identity: Gender, birth location, living conditions, upbringing, financial well being, health etc.

These things alone at least partially influence choices we make in our lives; I don't accept that humans have ABSOLUTE free will, I think we are products of our environment more than we like to admit.

This goes to definitions. "Free will" makes no sense if you don't account for reality. I could not somehow will myself to be Muhammad Ali, Neil Armstrong, Louis Armstrong, Lance Armstrong, or a carrot. I could however decide to live my life in pursuits similar to those. (Except for the carrot, of course)

So any usage of the term "free will" needs to already bear in mind natural limitations. And within those I could apply myself in a staggering variety of ways, leading to the possibility of really an unknowable amount of decisions, amongst an even greater array of options.

So despite our limitations, our will is really quite "free." (Compared to a carrot anyway)