Originally posted by russell55:
God's plan for human history includes both things he actively causes to happen, and things he chooses to allow to happen for a reason. Both things that God actively causes and things that He chooses to let happen for good reason can be rightly called God's will (in the plan for history sense) because scripture calls them God's will.
I agree, and have no problem with that statement. However, the jist of the thread so far, usually from npetreley and Pastor Larry (both of whom seem to have abandoned the discussion), is that what he "allows to happen" is "allowed" in appearance only: i.e. God actively controls *everything*. Pastor Larry said "God is in control, working all things after the counsel of his own will (Eph 1:11). "All things" is the operative phrase. That means nothing is left out of his control, nothing, nothing, nothing." That means even things that look like they are simply "allowed" by God, are ultimately also under God's control. If God controls everything, God controls *every thing*: the environment, people's biology, their circumstances, their history, their wants, thoughts and emotions, their choices, their actions. If God TRULY "allows", then that places some control in the hands of people - God "allowing" them true choice. If they have no option to do anything except what is predetermined (or "inevitable" or "certain" or "guaranteed" or whatever word seem most accurate), then this is not "allowing", for the choice is an illusion. Sure, God still has the right to hold us responsible for our choices and actions, but ultimately he controlls the situation so that we have no option but to think, choose and act as he controls. Some on this thread have said they "chose" to submit or believe in God's total control, and don't seem to realize the inherent contradiction in such a statement.
God did not actively cause this; in other words, He did not send His Holy Spirit to move within the king's heart so that the king would do this. The motivation for this act came from within the kings arrogant heart, and God let that arrogant heart do what it wanted because it suited his purposes.
God was in control of the act in the sense that He could have prevented it, but chose not to for good reason.
I agree. This gives some control, and a REAL choice, to the Assyrian king. But this is not "nothing is left out of his control, nothing, nothing, nothing."
You do have control over your own actions. I'm not arguing against human accountability. We have control over our own actions, and yet our actions are not outside of God's control. I'm not claiming to understand exactly how it works--exactly how the two things fit together--just claiming that this seems to be the way scripture looks at these things.
I have no problems with that statement.
I don't understand it totally either. But again, some here seem to be arguing for God's "total" control, and I don't see how that allows us real choice.
Nope. We have real choices AND God is in total control. We have at least two viable alternatives every time we make a decision.
We *don't* have two viable alternatives if one of them is predestined/certain/inevitable/guaranteed. When I'm about to enter my house, I don't have two options: walking through the door or floating through a wall. If only one option is possible, there are no alternatives. If God has "total control", it is impossible to do something outside that control, to make a choice other than what he controls (yes, controls) us to make. Earlier, someone used the analogy of steering a car, God being the driver and us being the car. When God steers to the right or if the car pulls to the right, the car continues to the right whether God continues to hold the wheel or not - i.e. God is in control, either directly controlling the car to go to the right, or allowing the car to go to the right. I can understand this. The problem is that it is then, by definition, impossible for the car to choose to go to the left of it's own will if God is in control of the car going right. Going left is not a "viable alternative".
We look at those two alternatives, weigh them, and decide which one we desire most, or which one seems best to us, or whatever. Yet none of those choices is ever outside of God's control: our good choices come by the direct agency of the Holy Spirit, and our bad ones are allowed by God for His own good reasons.
Not if God is in "total" control, for then he would control our mind when it goes through the "weighing and deciding" process, controlling how we think it through in the first place. We make choices based on desires, reasoning, experience, etc. But who controlled things so we would have those desires, those methods of reasoning, those experiences? God. If God is in "total" control, we indeed are puppets, God pulling all the strings. Granted, there are many strings and the cause-effect system would be very complicated, but it's strings nonetheless. People who hold this doctine say we're NOT puppets or robots, but then they fail to explain how any other conclusion is even possible.
You seem to be presupposing that choices God predestines cannot be REAL choices, and while that may seem to be a logical presupposition, I think that scripture everywhere presupposes the opposite--that predestined choices are REAL choices.
I sort of agree. Yes, I am presupposing that choices that God predestines cannot be REAL choices. The reason scripture seems to presuppose the opposite is not that choices are not real, but rather that the choices are not predestined.
I do computer programming for a living. I control how a program "thinks", how it makes decisions. The decisions are not made until the program is executed, but the "choices" are predetermined based on conditions. When the program runs, it "chooses" to do this or that, because I as the programmer am in control and predetermined things. The program itself, even though it appears to "choose" to do something, really has no choice, no free-will of it's own - it's an illusion.
