Can Free-Will and Determinism Co-Exist?

[Camron]

I think they can. In fact, I’m almost positive they do. And I would like to read others thoughts on this matter.

In my own opinion it seems to me that there are many things which are pre-determined, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquakes for example. We had no control over these disasters and nothing that we would have tried could have stopped them from happening either.

On the other hand, however, we do appear to have control over how we will react to these kinds of disasters, such as those who sought to aid those who needed relief. I can also think of those who risked their lives to save others within this same disaster too.

It seems to me that the physical mechanisms of nature are indeed fixed and pre-determined whereas the spiritual choices we make are not entirely pre-determined by these external factors (even if these external factors force us to make a choice one way or another). We have no choice but to choose. And even if we have decided not to choose we still have made a choice.

In short, the free-will of a person seems to be free only insofar as they are able to choose how to react to the given pre-determined situation they are faced with.

Does this make sense?

If so, does this not indicate that free-will and determinism can indeed co-exist together?

 

[Camron]

One concept that I had in mind regarding this co-existence of free-will and determinism was the idea of the wave-particle duality found in physics and chemistry. This duality is based on the observation that all matter and energy exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties. The duality arises due to the inadequacy of classical concepts like “particle” and “wave” in fully describing the behavior of small-scale objects.

There are those who absolutely insist that the duality is not a duality and insist that light is either only a wave (as Carver Mead proposes) or else only a particle (such as Richard Feynman proposes). To this it seems to me that many are attempting to force a false dichotomy when insisting the light is either a wave or a particle.

Another concept that I had in mind (regarding this co-existence of free-will and determinism) was the idea that our development needed to be either based on “natural” factors or else “nurturing” factors. Again, in a way that is similar to the wave-duality debates noted above, there are those who absolutely insist that the duality is not a duality and insist that our biological development is either based on only “Nature” or else only “Nurture”. Again, according to best research currently available, it appears to be both at the same time. So, again, considering the research available, it seems to me that many are attempting to force a false dichotomy when insisting that our biological development is either totally based on nature or else totally based on nurture.

This, in my opinion, comes to the whole theological debate between God’s Omnipotence and God’s Omniscience. As with the two examples noted above, these supposed proofs that some skeptics offer (which insist that God behave either one way or the other) appear to be attempting to force a false dichotomy when there really isn’t one. Both are happening at the same time.

In looking toward the reconciliation of free-will and determinism within the theological spectrum, it seems to be that many physical events are pre-determined, such as the planets orbiting the sun, or the rise and fall of the mountain ranges over exceptionally long geological periods, or tress growing in the forest. These things are pre-determined and we generally have no control over their happenings.

Having said this, the smaller the scale of the natural pre-determined events, the more we do indeed seem to appear to have some control over them. While humanity could not conceivably stop the planets from orbiting the sun, it is conceivable that humanity could indeed obliterate a mountain range within a relatively short period of time with enough explosives, and humanity can indeed uproots trees in any given forest and do with them as they please-- whether replanting them, or using them for firewood or lumber, or simply destroying them for no good reason at all.

My point with this is that the closer the scale of the pre-determined event is to the size that humanity can manage the more humanity has some degree of control over its fate and outcome. This seems to parallel to some degree that wave-particle duality noted above, where, depending on the different size scales, certain actions can or cannot be determined.

The super large events in this universe appear to be entirely out of our control and entirely pre-determined whereas the smaller scale events in the universe appear to be relatively within our control and capable of being somewhat affected by the free-will of a human consciousness.

 

[Camron]

Oh well…seems like there’s not much response. I guess I’ll leave this with the serenity prayer traditionally attributed to Reinhold Niebuhr. It seems to address this concept of free-will and determinism co-existing very well…

The Serenity Prayer

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
Forever in the next.

Amen.

 

[tobias]

I see no neccessary contradiction between free choice of the will and determinism as pertains to the movement of inanimate or unintelligent matter. However, a determined ‘free’ will is an oxymoron.

 I think we need to add some factors to your premise. Lets focus again on the tsunamis of '04. It was freedom of will that had many people vacationing at places affected by these events, so their outcome was directly associated with the free choices made. In addition to this, many who lived in the areas affected did not retreat to higher ground after the first initial wave which was smaller. The will to immediately assess the damage put them back in harm's way. 
 My point being, that our free choices may or may not place us in paths of what may or may not be determined movements of matter.

 

[Camron]

I see no neccessary contradiction between free choice of the will and determinism as pertains to the movement of inanimate or unintelligent matter. However, a determined ‘free’ will is an oxymoron.

I agree with you that there is no real contraction.

But there are definitely events in our lives that are pre-determined (such as when we are born, who our parents are, etc.) that we have no control over.

So I do not see why some pre-determined free will choices are necessarily an oxymoron. It’s like saying that we have no real freedom when taking a multiple choice test, just because the possible answers are “pre-determined” ahead of time.

Let’s say we’re on a road with two paths before us. The roads are pre-determined and, to some extent, so are our choices regarding what we can do concerning the two roads.

We can choose not to go down either road (and turn around and go back), or we can choose to sit there (and not make any definitive choice regarding which road we will go – either back or forward), or we can actually choose to go down either road (which is again a decision based on our choices).

And, of course, using our imagination, there are multiple other possible choices we could make concerning the two roads. But I think you see what I’m referring to.

In this sense, we really are making choices-- in a way simlar to a multiple choice test. But the limited amount of choices that we can make is pre-determined by the circumstances that we encounter in this life.

It seems to me that, in this sense, this is how God pre-determines the paths that we should walk in, as Ephesians 2 seems to allude to when it say we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

I think we need to add some factors to your premise. Lets focus again on the tsunamis of '04. It was freedom of will that had many people vacationing at places affected by these events, so their outcome was directly associated with the free choices made.

I agree. But there were also many pre-determined factors which were involved in the choices that the vacationers made in order to arrive at these places too.

In addition to this, many who lived in the areas affected did not retreat to higher ground after the first initial wave which was smaller. The will to immediately assess the damage put them back in harm’s way.

True. And these examples are indeed true choices being made based on the knowledge of pre-determined events. I suppose even past events based on previous choices by others would now be considered “pre-determined” in our “present sense” because it happened well before we could even influence their past choices.

So, again, there seems to be no real way to totally separate the whole idea of free-will and determinism. The two appear to be co-existing, working in tandem at the same time in relation to each other.

Again, it seems to me that those who insist for the either/or proposition are attempting to force a false dichotomy, much like the examples I gave regarding the debates about particle-wave duality and nature/nurture arguments noted above.

That’s my opinion anyway.

My point being, that our free choices may or may not place us in paths of what may or may not be determined movements of matter.

No doubt and I partially agree with you.

Again, I do believe that people really are making choices. I do believe that people really do have a free-will. Free-will does exist.

I am only stressing that some seem to be down-playing pre-determined factors when discussing this whole line of reasoning. It’s not oxymoronic to say that we are all making choices based on pre-determined factors. It’s simply the truth of how it happens. Both really are happening at the same time.

Consequently, one could go further with the idea of choices in regards to pre-determined factors. We obviously do not have any choice regarding when we are born or who are parents are. These are pre-determined by factors we have no control over.

But what of the child murdered in the womb by abortion for example? What choice do they have? Is not their tragic fate pre-determined by external factors they have absolutely no control over?

 

[tobias]

I agree with your logic, but at each point it is not a predetermination of the action of the free will, which was my meaning of oxymoronic. A predetermined set of choices does not cause a predetermined action of the will, but merely limits the possible outcomes.
So I don’t think we’re disagreeing.

 

[Camron]

I agree with your logic, but at each point it is not a predetermination of the action of the free will, which was my meaning of oxymoronic.

But has God not determined the course of our steps in advance?

As Proverbs 16:9 says…

In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

A predetermined set of choices does not cause a predetermined action of the will, but merely limits the possible outcomes.

I agree. So then why are so many sayng that free-will and determinism cannot co-exist?

So I don’t think we’re disagreeing.

I think we have agreement too.

It’s just seems that some appear to be saying that God deliberately creates some with the specific intent to damn them, which I seriously disagree with. They can’t seem to accept that God can indeed create people and guide them to salvation even as others shipwreck their own salvation entirely of their own will.

 

[tobias]

Determinism usually means that ultimately our movement of the will is predestined by God.
To me this means that a deterministic framework is no different than Calvinism- double predestination; the saved were made to be saved and the damned were made to be damned.
If however we mean by determinism that events and circumstances are predestined to happen in 1 neccessary way, then there is no infringment on libertarian free will.

 

[Camron]

Determinism usually means that ultimately our movement of the will is predestined by God.

True. But I think that the term "determined” has been kind of hi-jacked by the modern philosophies of those who feel the need to force others to think that they have no control over their circumstances. The problem with their assertion is that we clearly do have some control even though we are not totally in control.

To me this means that a deterministic framework is no different than Calvinism- double predestination; the saved were made to be saved and the damned were made to be damned.

And I think that we’re in agreement that this kind of double-predestination is indeed a devilish doctrine fabricated by small little warped minds that have nothing better to do with their time than attempt to rob others of their hope of salvation by trying to convince them that they are already predestined to be damned-- so why bother?

It’s not exactly the same. But it seems similar to a Christian counter-part of a semi-Hindu caste system.

Having said that, could it still not be said that God has fairly determined our steps with justice in this temporal life to the point that we only have one of two options, either Heaven or Hell?

God determines other things in this life too.

For example, the Bible says in Acts 17:26 that from one man He made every nation of men that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. This is a fairly involved process when one stops to think of God guiding and directing all of human civilization toward the one ultimate goal for or against Christ. Certainly, if this indeed the case, then it seems that, again, we would not be able to thwart God’s determined actions to set the times and the exact places where they should live. This to me seems to be a good example of a Biblical determinism that is wholly fair.

Likewise, that Bible says in 1 Corinthians 15:38 that God gives things a body as He has determined. To each kind of seed He gives its own body. Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. So, again, if God determined these things in advance, even in the case of theistic evolution, it would again seem as if God has deliberately set these things into motion (and also guided them) so that they will be as He wills them to be.

Or, as Exodus 4:11 states with God boldly talking to Moses…

The LORD said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD ?

No. I don’t think this is the same as the contemporary concepts of determinism.

So while certain neuroscientists would certainly balk at this concept, it does remain a fact that we have free choices to make within a specific frame-work of God’s design. And while I think it would be grossly unfair to the point of being anti-Christian to say that God creates specific individuals for the sole purpose of going to Hell, it remains a consistent fact within solid Catholic thought that God created certain individuals knowing full well in advance that they will throw themselves into the abyss by rejecting His Divine Love.

If however we mean by determinism that events and circumstances are predestined to happen in 1 necessary way, then there is no infringement on libertarian free will.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding libertarian free will.

Could you briefly explain your position a bit more?

 

[ERose]

Here is my 2 cents on the subject:

Yes they do exist together especially in human beings and maybe even some or most animals. All physical things are under determinism or cause and effect. All spiritual beings are under free-will as we understand it. As such since we human beings are both physical and spiritual we have free will but we also must deal with determinism as well. Two point to show what I mean: Joe looks up at the moon and decides he wants to go there. But he cannot. The intention is there (aka free will) but the physical means is not there. So it is determined that Joe will not go to the moon. 2nd example: Joe becomes ill and discovers that the illness is a genetic defect inherited from his grandfather. Joe does not want to get sick and wants to not be sick (free will) but becomes sick anyway (determinism).

As such we human beings until we are changed into beings where our spiritual side is greater than our physical side as promised after the day of judgement must deal with determinism of the physical universe.

 

[bogeydogg]

Calvin said that predestination and/or double predestination should not be considered as a stand alone doctrine but rather a human attempt to understand why some would reject the overwhelming majesty of the free offer of grace. Calvin determined that every man cannot accept the offer of grace unless God empowers him to do so. In this he was joined by Luther who I think over stressed the teachings of Augustine concerning free will and Divine Providence.

I think both were wrong.

I believe that God offers grace to all men and that decision and the offering of said grace are completely the unconditional decision of a holy God to offer grace to an undeserving and fallen creature. However, and Augustine said this too, I do not think God violates free will to save men. If a man accepts the free offer of grace then he believes and obeys and God is glorified in His mercy. If a man rejects the free offer of grace then he is damned and God is glorified in His justice when He righteously throws that man into Hell. Either way God is glorified.

More to follow on Providence.

 

[bogeydogg]

I think what this thread is on about concerning ‘determinism’ and ‘free will’ is really a question of Providence.

Providence does not mean that God causes (as in to provide the outcome of) everything that happens. Rather the word is and anglicization of two latin words. 1. Pro- before or ahead of. 2. Vidi- vision. You know, ‘veni vidi vici’. So Providence has to do with God’s foreseeing whatsoever will come to pass.

According to this foreknowledge, God ordains everything that will be. However, ordination is not causal either. Ordination is God’s decree of what will be ordinary. For example, when man fell in the Garden, God cursed the ground because of man’s sin. It is for this reason that things like tsunamis occur. They do not occur because of a mechanistic causal predetermination of them, but because God has declared that because of men’s sin, such things will occur because of the perversion of the natural order due to sin.

However, this is not determinism.

Determinism, I am pretty sure, comes from a sect of Greek Philosophers called the Stoics who believed that all things in the world were controlled by the fates. (As in fatalism.) Stoics believed that all life was predetermined and that man was subject to whatever came his way and that his will had no influence at all upon his circumstances. Therefore, they reasoned, man must instead stoically accept his fate and not complain about it.

By the way, this is one of the two philosophies specifically rebuked in Scripture, the other being Epicureanism.

So, I think, we can see that free will and determinism are contradictory, however free will and God’s providence are not.

 

[bogeydogg]

Determinism usually means that ultimately our movement of the will is predestined by God.
To me this means that a deterministic framework is no different than Calvinism- double predestination; the saved were made to be saved and the damned were made to be damned.
If however we mean by determinism that events and circumstances are predestined to happen in 1 neccessary way, then there is no infringment on libertarian free will.

As I understand it, doesn’t libertarian free will mean that a man makes his decisions from a position of neutrality?

Is that what you mean?

A certain double-predestinarianism would most certainly be deterministic, no in fact I think it would be fatalism plain and simple. As far as some going to Hell because of predestination, what about this?

God elects to save a fallen people, but not in “You, you and you… but not you,” sort of way, but rather by an internal agreement within the Godhead. That is, “I know they will fall , but I will save them anyway.” So election is internal and not external.

In order to make man aware of salvation God clearly reveals Himself through Creation as well as by divine grace, i. e. Romans 1 where the Apostle Paul flatly declares that all men know God but refuse to worship Him as God.

So God declares to save and gives grace to all men that they may be saved or damned according to their own free will, and God (here comes the predestination which the Bible very clearly does teach) decides that He will not act positively toward those who reject grace, but instead allows them to condemn themselves.

So.

If God does not intervene to save those who reject Him, which He can do because after all He is God, and God knows perfectly beforehand who will refuse grace, does not God’s knowledge coupled with man’s free will decision to damn himself not effectively predestine some people for Hell? And if so, do not those who are predestined for Hell still determine for themselves where they will spend eternity without God having created them to be damned?

 

[Camron]

Here is my 2 cents on the subject:

Yes they do exist together especially in human beings and maybe even some or most animals. All physical things are under determinism or cause and effect. All spiritual beings are under free-will as we understand it. As such since we human beings are both physical and spiritual we have free will but we also must deal with determinism as well. Two point to show what I mean: Joe looks up at the moon and decides he wants to go there. But he cannot. The intention is there (aka free will) but the physical means is not there. So it is determined that Joe will not go to the moon. 2nd example: Joe becomes ill and discovers that the illness is a genetic defect inherited from his grandfather. Joe does not want to get sick and wants to not be sick (free will) but becomes sick anyway (determinism).

As such we human beings until we are changed into beings where our spiritual side is greater than our physical side as promised after the day of judgement must deal with determinism of the physical universe.

I’m fairly well in agreement with this and see no reason to object, with the condition that God does not test us beyond what we can handle.

 

[Camron]

I think what this thread is on about concerning ‘determinism’ and ‘free will’ is really a question of Providence.

Providence does not mean that God causes (as in to provide the outcome of) everything that happens. Rather the word is and anglicization of two latin words. 1. Pro- before or ahead of. 2. Vidi- vision. You know, ‘veni vidi vici’. So Providence has to do with God’s foreseeing whatsoever will come to pass.

According to this foreknowledge, God ordains everything that will be. However, ordination is not causal either. Ordination is God’s decree of what will be ordinary. For example, when man fell in the Garden, God cursed the ground because of man’s sin. It is for this reason that things like tsunamis occur. They do not occur because of a mechanistic causal predetermination of them, but because God has declared that because of men’s sin, such things will occur because of the perversion of the natural order due to sin.

However, this is not determinism.

Determinism, I am pretty sure, comes from a sect of Greek Philosophers called the Stoics who believed that all things in the world were controlled by the fates. (As in fatalism.) Stoics believed that all life was predetermined and that man was subject to whatever came his way and that his will had no influence at all upon his circumstances. Therefore, they reasoned, man must instead stoically accept his fate and not complain about it.

By the way, this is one of the two philosophies specifically rebuked in Scripture, the other being Epicureanism.

So, I think, we can see that free will and determinism are contradictory, however free will and God’s providence are not.

To be honest there doesn’t seem to be much difference, since Providence does appear, in my opinion, to be causal too. Indeed, if God has provided the necessary Providence to enable something to happen could it not be said that He caused it to happen, albeit providentially?

Again, even after reading your others posts too, I currently see no funadamental difference. Perhaps you could explain this more clearly?

 

[bogeydogg]

To be honest there doesn’t seem to be much difference, since Providence does appear, in my opinion, to be causal too. Indeed, if God has provided the necessary Providence to enable something to happen could it not be said that He caused it to happen, albeit providentially?

Again, even after reading your others posts too, I currently see no funadamental difference. Perhaps you could explain this more clearly?

I’m probably making a bit of a hash of this but here goes.

C. S. Lewis said that God exists in yesterday today and tomorrow simultaneously. That is, God’s omnipresence is not everywhere but every when as well.

Augustine said that we experience time as constant series of perishing events. Our yesterday has ceased to be except in memory, and that our tomorrow will also cause the same thing as it pertains to our today. However, said Augustine, since God exists above time (He created it and is therefore not subject to it) He is able to exist in all times and experience all time as though it were a single present. I don’t pretend to absolutely grasp this, but that is how I understand what these two men said.

Providence does not mean that God causally provides for everything that occurs. It means that God, by His fore vision, (pro vidi) has foreseen everything which will be. And while it is true that God foresees without error, it does not mean that must cause everything to be that happens. It simply means that God knows about it before it does.

In this fashion, our free will decisions are real free will decisions and God does not have to predetermine what we will do in order to know what we will do. In other words, because God knows us completely and sees what we will do, He is able to observe our actions and motives without causing us to do what we do.

I think this must be so because one could ask, did God know then that man would fall. The answer must be yes. However, did God cause man to fall by his knowledge. The answer must be know because then man would be legally guilty but not morally accountable.

 

[Camron]

I’m probably making a bit of a hash of this but here goes.

C. S. Lewis said that God exists in yesterday today and tomorrow simultaneously. That is, God’s omnipresence is not everywhere but every when as well.

Augustine said that we experience time as constant series of perishing events. Our yesterday has ceased to be except in memory, and that our tomorrow will also cause the same thing as it pertains to our today. However, said Augustine, since God exists above time (He created it and is therefore not subject to it) He is able to exist in all times and experience all time as though it were a single present. I don’t pretend to absolutely grasp this, but that is how I understand what these two men said.

We’re in agreement here.

Providence does not mean that God causally provides for everything that occurs. It means that God, by His fore vision, (pro vidi) has foreseen everything which will be. And while it is true that God foresees without error, it does not mean that must cause everything to be that happens. It simply means that God knows about it before it does.

I understand that. But at the same time God has brought this about too. No. I don’t think that He fiddled with the mechanisms along the way. But I do believe that He was personally involved as He sustained His creation, allowing it the freedom to vicariously accomplish His will for Him, something which He knew in advance would happen. Indeed, to Him, it has already happened.

In this fashion, our free will decisions are real free will decisions and God does not have to predetermine what we will do in order to know what we will do. In other words, because God knows us completely and sees what we will do, He is able to observe our actions and motives without causing us to do what we do.

That doesn’t make sense and seems to turn some traditional Catholic thought on its head.

Is God our creator or not?

God simply knowing in advance doesn’t necessarily indicate that God created us. It just indicates that He knew what would happen. So then there must have been another stage wherein which He actually acted in some spiritual sense to bring about the causality that we experience with the framework of time space itself.

I think this must be so because one could ask, did God know then that man would fall. The answer must be yes.

I agree here.

However, did God cause man to fall by his knowledge. The answer must be know because then man would be legally guilty but not morally accountable.

Do you mean “must be no…” and are you not necessarily speaking solely of knowledge. If so, this still doesn’t really answer the questions as hand.

I agree that God did not cause people to sin, at least not in the sense that He was deliberately forcing them to sin. But, in regards to the parameters and involvement that He set forth and does, He is setting up the framework where, if indeed one mortally transgresses His Will without sincere repentance, then they are indeed going to Hell according to His Omnipotent Will.

So, no, I don’t think that God is directly sending people to Hell. I think that He is saving many from damnation and leading them toward Heaven. However, He is indeed stil fairly bringing about the final conclusion to what our actions deserve in this life as He administers justice fairly to all.

There seems to be no way around this part: God knows in advance what will happen and He apparently approves of their damnation as being fair and just even if it breaks His heart in the process to allow their damnation to happen.

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel that God “hopes” for things, since He already knows what will happen in advance? Likewise, how do you feel that God makes “choices”, especially since He already knows the future? I have a few thoughts on this and would like to share them with you to understand how you feel about them.

Perhaps a greater understanding could ensue from shared ideas about this.

 

[Camron]

I believe that God offers grace to all men and that decision and the offering of said grace are completely the unconditional decision of a holy God to offer grace to an undeserving and fallen creature. However, and Augustine said this too, I do not think God violates free will to save men. If a man accepts the free offer of grace then he believes and obeys and God is glorified in His mercy. If a man rejects the free offer of grace then he is damned and God is glorified in His justice when He righteously throws that man into Hell. Either way God is glorified.

More to follow on Providence.

It appears to me that God is living throughout those who are docile to the Holy Spirit. But when we sin this sin slays God, with His death throughout all time-space manifesting on the Cross. Again in this sense when God hopes it’s because man has sinned against Him. In other words, in order for people to truly be alive, God must be alive in them. But if He does not live in them, then they are as good as dead on a spiritual level, even if our bodies are is still moving and our intellect is still rational.

Now one might ask, “How can God hope for something if He already knows the future?”

The answer seems to be that we manifest the hope that God “feels” through us, quite literally God manifesting a sensation of hope throughout our souls from within, leading us toward His eternal salvation. Again in this sense God is not dependent on man to live. It’s the other way around-- man is dependent on God to live, with the Holy Spirit breathing God’s breath through us and feeling certain emotions for us on our behalf. And it is, in my opinion, during these periods when people sin, that God “feels” a sense of hope – God hoping in a metaphysical sense – something which He already fore-knew would be felt long ago, especially since He experiences all time at the same time.

So is God really hoping for us?

Technically speaking, in my opinion, God is not “hoping” for anything. He already knows what will happen. He already knows what we need in advance. But, so that we may get through our sorrows, God allows us to manifest His ability to hope anyway. And His hope provides the grace we need to get through these difficult times. This is, in a sense, the practical application of why God not only knows what “will happen”, but He also knows what “could happen” too.

So what is the difference between God knowing what “will happen” and God knowing what “could happen”

I think that God is experiencing “what could be” whenever we sin, feeling hope for humanity during this time that we are outside of His Divine Love. Again, in my opinion, this has to be about creation, the idea that God gave us some authority to be co-creators with Him, which is why He shares with us the abilities that He doesn’t even need.

God, being Omnipotent, doesn’t need to feel these things-- but is still capable of doing so. We, on the other hand, do need to feel these things-- but are incapable doing so wthout God.

So when God “hopes”, I don’t think that He Himself is necessarily hoping for us in the same sense as mortal human beng would hope. I think He is manifesting within us and quite literally hoping “on our behalf” because we are incapable of doing so wihout Him.

This brings me to two points:

1: When we do God’s will this seems to equal God knowing what will happen on actual level. In other words, since we are moving by God’s grace, the very life of God, God is moving us by the Holy Spirit to do His will—something which He has no problem doing so long as we are docile to the Holy Spirit.

This doesn’t mean that God doesn’t know what will happen in the future. It means that God already knows in advance what we will need and has already provided it for us to avoid sin in the first place.

2: When we do not do God’s will, however, this seems to equal God knowing what could happen on an actual level. In other words, since sin is a deprivation of Gods’ will, we have defaulted to God’s “desire” instead of His “will”, effectively experiencing what “could happen”.

This doesn’t mean that God doesn’t know what will happen in the future. It means that God already knows in advance what we will need and has already provided it for us when we do sin.

 

[bogeydogg]

I actually don’t think we are very far apart.

The initial question seemed to me to framed in a way which sounded like, “Does God’s will reduce the universe to mechanical procedures which only serve to play out what God knows will happen before hand?” That is how I understand determinism, the end is determined and all events will therefore inexorably head toward that end. I don’t think that is right, which is why I brought up Providence.

Since God is able to know all things that will happen (I am not sure what could and will happen are different when concerning an omniscient being) and He knows us and our motives and dreams, desires, and all the inward workings of our hearts completely, He is therefore able to work out His will in our lives perfectly without violating the free will which He gave us. In other words, God can wait for us at the corner of the road without having to pull puppet strings in our heads to give us directions.

Does God directly sustain and interact with His Creation? Yes of course He does, the Bible makes that very clear. Also, to assert that God does not interact would slip into the heresy of Deism and Lord save me form that. I guess the point is that, concerning free will, God’s free will is higher than mine, so when and if He takes it upon Himself to interrupt my free will I ahve no problem with that. After all, the incarnation of Christ is the greatest violation of human volition in history, and yet it was absolutely necessary to accomplish God’s plans according to His sovereign rule of His Creation.

 

[bogeydogg]

I would however inject one thing here.

Of course God does not compel people to go to Hell in a double-predestinarian sense. However, as the sovereign ruler and righteous judge, God, at the judgment, does actively and personally throw the souls of the unrepentant into Hell. This is why the Church affirms perfect and imperfect contrition. A man can realize his sin offends God and repent; or a man can realize that God has the authority to throw him into Hell and repent in fear. The Church recognizes both as valid contrition although of course perfect is preferable to imperfect and once a man has repented imperfectly he should move toward perfect contrition as well.