Providence and Free Will

Fervent said:

None of what you said addresses the basic point, you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth by saying we are responsible for God's actions.

Click to expand...

I did not say we are responsible for God's actions. We are responsible for OUR choices, our actions. But it is undeniably logical to say that God (First Cause) caused everything to happen precisely as it does. But he is not us to be blamed for our evildoing, even though he planned for it to happen, and even caused all the causes, whether directly, or through second, third, etc causes and agents. That was Spurgeon's whole point in that video. God is sovereign. He has the absolute right of Creator to do whatever he pleases with his creation. God does not exist or dwell from our economy. He has his own. God owes us nothing.

True Counterphobia said:

I think what you are missing here is that Free Will and God's Providence are not two separate things according to @Mark Quayle and I, but they are two sides of the same coin. It need not mean God controls us, but we do everything in accord with what God Wills. If you can't get what Mark is saying here when He talks about how Big God is, then you are lacking in how Great you see God. It's right there in black and white. God is big enough to Will everything at the same time as giving us Free Will.

Click to expand...

No, I understand how he's trying to get out of removing our will but it's not a legitimate shift it's simply saying that two contradictory things are true at the same time and calling it a mystery. If everything is according to God's will then there is no sin, nothing to be held accountable for. It was as God willed, with the intended result being the punitive actions that come. It's the ultimate "might makes right" argument, since the whole reason it's seen as acceptable is because God is all-powerful. And it smacks against the morality of the Bible in which weak things are honored to shame the strong. Terms like "just" become meaningless, as does "free will." If the only thing we are capable of willing is what God allows us to will, we have no will and are mere extensions of God's will.

Mark Quayle said:

I did not say we are responsible for God's actions. We are responsible for OUR choices, our actions. But it is undeniably logical to say that God (First Cause) caused everything to happen precisely as it does. But he is not us to be blamed for our evildoing, even though he planned for it to happen, and even caused all the causes, whether directly, or through second, third, etc causes and agents. That was Spurgeon's whole point in that video. God is sovereign. He has the absolute right of Creator to do whatever he pleases with his creation. God does not exist or dwell from our economy. He has his own. God owes us nothing.

Click to expand...

God planned the evil. God enacted the evil, but because we are the tool by which he did these things we should be punished. Right. So should a gun be dismantled because someone was shot with it? After all, the gun "chose" to fire the bullet.

True Counterphobia said:

I can't speak for Mark here after seeing some of his comments, but for my part, yes, I believe paradoxes exist in reality. For example, the Trinity is something most people cannot define beyond the essential basics of what that means. For others, they put a lot of time into reading different theories about it and thinking about it to explain it in more depth. But to the regular person on the street, they just don't really understand the Trinity too well. That doesn't mean the Trinity is false just because it appears to be a contradiction. My view on Free Will and God's Providence is more or less a similar kind of paradox.

Click to expand...

A paradox is different than an outright contradiction, and your mention of the Trinity somewhat highlights that as God is not 3 in the sense that He is 1, nor is He 1 in the sense that He is 3. His oneness refers to His external relationships, while threeness to His self-experience. There's no formal contradiction there, simply a difficult concept to understand (Perhaps impossible to fully understand). On the other hand, being unable to will anything other than what God wills is formally contradictory to free will because there are no two senses about it and the terms lose all their meaning. So while you may accept paradoxes, the manner the proposition has been put forth isn't paradoxical but is instead a formal contradiction.

Fervent said:

A paradox is different than an outright contradiction, and your mention of the Trinity somewhat highlights that as God is not 3 in the sense that He is 1, nor is He 1 in the sense that He is 3. His oneness refers to His external relationships, while threeness to His self-experience. There's no formal contradiction there, simply a difficult concept to understand (Perhaps impossible to fully understand). On the other hand, being unable to will anything other than what God wills is formally contradictory to free will because there are no two senses about it and the terms lose all their meaning. So while you may accept paradoxes, the manner the proposition has been put forth isn't paradoxical but is instead a formal contradiction.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it would be helpful for me to mention, that usually when I post, I try to put God's point of view (obviously not the whole thing, but as best I can) 'on paper'. I don't disagree with you about the difference between paradox and contradiction. While we may say there is no contradiction, my point in denying any paradox is to say that THE TRUTH (i.e. God's point-of-view) sees no paradox. If paradox is only in our minds, that doesn't mean it needs to be left at that. (While I don't mean to say that I have achieved God's POV), to me, at this point in my life, there is no paradox between the will and choice of a moral agent and predestination. Even 'predetermination' is ok with me, as long as it is understood that God did not create for a separate purpose of condemning anyone or for the separate purpose of causing that sin be --these are ONLY part of his MAIN cause --his Glory and his People at the 'end of all things'.

On the other hand, if I attempt to consider the idea that humans have 'autonomous (to ANY degree) free will', while at the same time trying to admit to God's sovereignty, yes, my throat does constrict! Paradox would be a too-nice word to use for that!

Fervent said:

A paradox is different than an outright contradiction, and your mention of the Trinity somewhat highlights that as God is not 3 in the sense that He is 1, nor is He 1 in the sense that He is 3. His oneness refers to His external relationships, while threeness to His self-experience. There's no formal contradiction there, simply a difficult concept to understand (Perhaps impossible to fully understand). On the other hand, being unable to will anything other than what God wills is formally contradictory to free will because there are no two senses about it and the terms lose all their meaning. So while you may accept paradoxes, the manner the proposition has been put forth isn't paradoxical but is instead a formal contradiction.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why it seems humorous to me to consider that what we have problems understanding --and call paradox-- such as this matter of the Trinity, to God is not only resolvable and non-contradictory, not paradox at all, but the actual normal way of things. It is who he is!

Also, I've got a definite notion when we see him as he is we will not only assent to and understand the facts of what we refer to as the Trinity, (and, so to speak, smack our foreheads for being so stupid to not have seen the obvious examples and other indicators we should have understood while in the flesh), but we will be astounded at the full nature of God.

True Counterphobia said:

The Trinity is familiar to you, that is why you don't think it's a contradiction. My idea is foreign to you, which is why you do see it as a contradiction.

Click to expand...

I don't think many Trinitarians take as final, the doctrine of the Trinity much farther than the concise statements as found in the confessions and creeds. Probably it is worth mentioning here that the Hierarchy between the three, obvious in Scripture, is no indicator that one is God and the other two are not.

Personally, I don't begin to think I understand it. That said, I am immediately suspicious of anyone who does pretend to understand it and skeptical of any structures built to prop it up. I don't consider God's love of himself to be a result of his consideration of himself as 3 persons, but rather simply because of the love and esteem of each 'person' of the three for each other.

To me there is an obvious distinction of some sort between them --obvious by the fact that their absolute unity is prominently referred to or emphasized in Scripture.

Even the simple concise statements -- perhaps even the very use of the word, Trinity, can too easily be mistaken to imply things not true. The Bible does not use the term, which makes me suspicious of the concept as presented by believers/ theologians.

True Counterphobia said:

The Trinity is familiar to you, that is why you don't think it's a contradiction. My idea is foreign to you, which is why you do see it as a contradiction.

Click to expand...

No, I'm familiar with both concepts. The issue is purely one of sense, as there are no two senses of will within your view since both are regarding choice and the origin of a choice is singular. While we may agree with God's will, if God's will is the instigation of our will then there is no such thing as our will except as an extension of God's will. The very question of free will is whether or not we are able to make decisions apart from external coersion, which God's willing our will would absolutely deny. As I mentioned before, if we program a computer program to act in a given manner when presented two options the program has no will when it "chooses" the option it was programmed to choose. Your position renders the terms meaningless because your version of "free will" in no way resembles common usage of the term and in fact presents the opposite effect. It's formally contradictory.

True Counterphobia said:

What do you see here?

Click to expand...

Code for building proteins.

True Counterphobia said:

Right. It's DNA, which has a double helix in it. That's more or less how I see our existence. God is one part of the helix and we are the other. One can't be without the other or it wouldn't be DNA. So it takes both God and us to do anything. Does that analogy work for you or not?

Click to expand...

No, the analogy doesn't work because it doesn't fit in any way. One side of DNA is not dependent on the other, nor are the individual peptides independent entities. Our will, in some way, is dependent on God's will as He created us. God's will is entirely independent from our will, because He is the omnipotent Creator. The only way everything we will could be in agreement with God's will and our wills be in a dependent relationship with God is if they do not exist in reality but are in fact simply powerful illusions. In fact, the analogy only worsens the contradiction because it re-affirms that you're attempting to use will in the same sense in both instances.

True Counterphobia said:

Tell me how you think people get saved.

Click to expand...

God reveals Himself to them and they respond in faith.

God empties himself because he wills that I have freedom. in this way it is not Gods direct will that causes my will but rather a kind of void that i spring out of. this was the death of God which gave birth to something other than God. you see, one seed if it falls to the ground shall result in many sons coming to be. so now you might begin to understand how all things are made through the Logos. the Logos is fully God and fully human.

let us say that we do not understand fully the nature of our mother but nevertheless we are in a kind of womb. did you really think that there was somewhere that God could not be? but is that not silly and impossible? God has such a powerful imagination that it is as if i'm real. am I yet to call God my father? he is the one that told us he is. then in the end this void is just some kind of feminine aspect of God, some kind of darkness that gives birth to light. in some ways I could be nothing but an illusion. but a divine illusion is real enough to just be called creation.