or did she? hmmm

Conterfactual conditionals tell us something about the world as it actually is, but by referring to unactualized possibilities. They are useful and are used in analysing a number of different concepts, including causation, free will, dispositions, and abilities. Wm. T. is not necessarily correct to argue aagainst counterfactuals by, among other reasons, stating that they are merely of academic interest and “in practical terms counterfactuals (such as “if I’d chosen a different wife”) are not really useful.”

Whether counterfactuals are useful and appropriate to use depends on one’s view of other aspects of the issues engaged. If one is a hard determinist, believing that the laws or regularitys of the natural and material world are such that only one future can result from or after any given past, then of course counterfactuals are irrelevant. That is, of course, not the only position one can take toward counterfactual conditions.

Counterfactuals are useful because there is, or at least profoundly seems to be, an asymmetry between the past and the future based on the direction of the flow of time and the normal direction of causation. Consequently, the future is open in a way that the past is not.

The asymmetry between past and future is illustrated by the fact that we don’t deliberate about the past in the same way that we deliberate about the future. We deliberate about whether a past action was really the best action that we could have done, but we don’t believe that we can actually gchange what has occured in the past if we decide that we would rather have done something different. We are stuckl with the results of our choice. In short, we have no choice about what we have done in the past (i.e., we cannot change the past) but we do have a choice about the future (it will be different depending on what we choose).

We can (are able to) both deliberate about what future acts would be best, and also deliberate about which acts we will in fact do, or should perform. That is, the future looks open to us in a way that the past is not. Thus, it looks like the future is open to Allison, or up to her, in a way that the past is not. What we by exercising our free will (our ability to both do or not do something, or to do one of a number of mutually exclusive actions) do, is to select from a range of different options for the future, each of which is possible given the past and the laws of nature. For this reason, this view of free will is often called the “Garden of Forking Paths Model.”

Wm. T. muddles things by stating, as if true, such contradictory propositions as “randomness” occurs “under God’s sovereignity”. Randomness, as usually defined, is a LACK or ABSENCE of order, purpose, cause, or predictability. Randomness in that sense cannot be experienced by God, nor be a true attribute of our universe. It can only be something that appears to us in that fashion (i.e., with a lack of predicability or purpose, etc.) because of some inadequacy in us, such as limited knowledge or mental faculties.

It seems that Wm. T. subscribes to some variety of determinism that he believes is compatible with the expression “free will”–as he defines free will–for he makes statements such as ” If God’s plan is sovereign, then God planned that intervention as much as He planned the non-intervention most of the rest of the time. The reason for the intervention wasn’t to cause a result that wouldn’t have happened otherwise, because God could have arranged that result.”

Those statements don’t describe the kind of moral responsibility or ability act that I believe the Bible describes.

Under a deterministic view, even one that purports to be compatible with some kind of free will, Alice’s marriage to Bob, who regularly beats her physicaly and who’s beatings have resulted in miscarriages and permanent physical injuries was determined from the moment of creation (since time did not exist before creation, it would be nonsense to say “before the moment of creation” unless “befgore” is used in some sort of timeless manner). By Wm. T’s explanation, if one were to restart the universe aseveral times with the same initial conditions and the same actions by God, then it would turn out the same every time. Alice would always marry Bob. Hence, it would always be God’s will (in some sense) that she marry Bob.

Indeed, Wm. T. states above that “Not everything that happens is according to God’s moral law. Everything that happens is part of God’s plan.” Inherent in the notion of “plan” is “intention”, and so it follows that God planned for and intended that Alice marry Bob and be physically abused. Of course, one could try to extricate God morally by having the actual events (the marrying, and the beating) caused or undertaken by secondary or tertiary events or actors. That is, God did not directly by some mind control force Alice to marry Bob, nor did he motivate Bob to beat her. However, to get God off thge hook this way requires one to use a very restricted sense of morality, one that we wouldn’t allow ourselves to get away with.

CMP raises the story: ““Acts 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of
their dwelling place.” If it is as simple as saying that God, in no sense, willed the marriage or the conception of the child spoken of above, but simply allowed it and worked through it, how it is that he “determined” the time and place that they were to be born?”

That verse does indicate that God is sovereign over nations, but it does not indicate the detail to which God exercises his sovereignity nor the manner in which he does it. If one reads further in the chapter (and earlier) one readily see that Paul does not mean that God meticulously controls every action of people, such that there is only one way that world could have turned out in the past up to tehat point (or in the future, either). If it were so planned, why would God “now commandeth ALL men everywhere to repent” (vs. 30)? Yet many people do refuse to repent, as did some of the Stoics and Epicureans to whome Paul preached; they mocked him (v. 32) and only “certain men” believed (v. 34).

CMP asks, “If you are talking to a person who is the result of a rape/incest happening, and they ask you “Was it God’s will that I was conceived” what do you say?” I would say that the question itself is misconceived for it uses a vague term “God’s will” that can have any one of several meanings. Depending on the meaning intended, the answer would be different. I wold answer by saying that God has no desire that anyone should suffer evil. The rape of her mother was an evil that God had no desire should come to pass. However, God has allowed Satan to be the prince of this world for a short time, and God has allowed us humans to live in sin and in our flesh until His kingdom is fully come. Consequently, these evil actors (Satan and his demons and sinful people) a re allowed to act in rebellion to God and to do evil. God has not come yet, and allows evil to conitnue, because he delays his coming because he does not want any to perish (2 Peter 3). So, the circumstances of her conception are sinful, but that does not define her. All life is a gift of God, every conception is a gift, and God died for her. It is not necessary for God to specifically plan that the rape occur and her conception result in order for her life to have value and significance and for her to experience the love of God.

Apart from whatever else is said, Arukiyomi has expressed a very important insight, one that is consistent with Chris S.’s point (post no. 48).

Yet the Bible clearly states that God does providentially care for situations like that, which means that He foreknows them (in fact, it actually states that God foreknew the worst such situation, the crucifixion of Christ).

The only explanation that fits with the idea that God is good is to suppose that He must have a good reason — a better purpose, something that would not be achieved without that horror. And if He does have a purpose for that, then having that happen must be in His will.

Married at 21 to wife 1 , 1 child, divorced at 22
Married at 25 to wife 2, 1 child, still married [though both parties are miserable]

This can’t possibly be God’s will, moral or decretive, can it?

This greatly saddened me.

How much more opposite can Christ and the church be? And yet, simply by grace, he considers us the right people for himself. And we are the right people not because of what we do but because of what he has done for us.

If Christ can marry us, if his love means anything to us, surely it means that there is not a single person (of the opposite gender!) out there who we could not marry, because, as Hosea was asked to demonstrate, any marriage has the potential to reflect the grace of Christ loving the church.

Love is unconditional. By definition, it cannot be restricted to the idea of a ’soulmate.’

If we’re struggling to love our spouses, it isn’t a case of us marrying the wrong person. Rather, it’s a case of us being the wrong person for them.

But, in Christ, all things, including our personhood, are made new!

Tanksley, that is a good way to approach it. But the question really is whether “which spouse we choose” is part of God’s “Plan” for the universe, or whether it is simply what God knew would happen and God’s Plan still works with that event.

In a practical sense, though, if God knows that an event is going to happen, and He could prevent it but doesn’t, then that event takes its place in God’s plan, even if the event is not essential to the plan as a whole. Jesus uses the example of the hairs on our head or the fall of a sparrow; how much greater is your spouse than they?

Admittedly, Jesus wasn’t talking about foreknowledge or eternal decrees there; He was talking about providence. But clearly it’s useful to talk about providence when discussing one’s spouse.

A subtle difference, I suppose. I think I could have chosen a different spouse than I did (which, yes, would have made it a different universe than the one God chose), and God’s Plan still could have been fulfilled.

If we can suppose, for the sake of argument, that God’s plan of redemption for the universe and glorification for Himself would be equally satisfied by one spouse as another — then yes, surely God could have made either plan. And if God did NOT know the future, or if His knowledge were purely conditional, then surely it would be reasonable to talk about either one fulfilling His plan.

Again, though, this is academic; in practical terms counterfactuals (such as “if I’d chosen a different wife”) are not really useful.

It becomes very circular and does, indeed, stretch the meaning of many concepts out of all recognizable form, to argue that our free will and God’s naturally occurring universe is suddenly NOT either free or random because God happened to have foreknown it, and chose accordingly. Yes, God chose the “flavor” of universe in which these exact events happened, and thus what actually happens IS God’s will, but the MECHANICS of the my free will and the natural randomness are still there.

But the Bible says that God does control randomness: see Prov 16:33. Do you have a verse that says men’s wills are not under God’s control? I have a verse that says the heart of the king is in the Lord’s hands.

The Bible also gives God the credit for “knitting” us in our mother’s wombs… Even though we now know the mechanism precisely, we can also continue to give God full responsibility, because He uses the mechanism as the means for His creative work. This doesn’t dismiss the mechanism; it glorifies it.

I definitely don’t argue that we’re not free; instead, I argue that our freedom, and the universe’s randomness, happens under the sovereignty and knowledge of God.

And I think this works still with the verse Michael points out. God chose the flavor of universe in which those boundaries would end up being where they were. Thus God “determined” them in His choosing among the infinite varieties in the first place.

But God created from nothing — He therefore wasn’t limited in where those boundaries would go by anything aside from His own counsel. In effect, He completely determined those boundaries, even if He didn’t create them as part of the initial creation of the universe.

Another Scriptural support for this view comes from the mere fact that the Bible describes where God *intervenes*, he has mercy, he responds to prayers, he does miracles. If EVERY event on this planet throughout history was meticulously determined by God, it would be entirely redundant for Scripture to indicate that God stepped in to make something happen or prevent something from happening.

But surely there are many ways God answers prayers and shows grace. Some of the answers are given by natural means (which are still to the glory of God), and some are given by miraculous means.

This describes a sovereign God stepping in to a naturally occurring world and CHANGING what was going to happen, absent that intervention.

But again you’re using counterfactuals. If God’s plan is sovereign, then God planned that intervention as much as He planned the non-intervention most of the rest of the time. The reason for the intervention wasn’t to cause a result that wouldn’t have happened otherwise, because God could have arranged that result.

The Bible doesn’t say what the reason for all miracles are, but I suspect (from looking at the stories) that God’s purpose with explicit miracles is to communicate with us.

I am talking specifically here about the mechanics of how the universe works naturally, including our own choices, in the absence of God’s intervention. If God controlled our every desire, there would be no need for Scripture to describe God stepping in to “harden” someone’s heart, for example.

But God speaks of hardening Pharaoh’s heart, and yet “the heart of the king is in the Lord’s hands, He turns it however He wishes.” It seems to me that hardening someone’s heart isn’t the only way God can control desires (in fact, a hardened heart might be more a matter of punishment than of control). Note also the talk about the “natural man” versus the fruit of the Spirit; God certainly gives those desires at His own discretion, and they are not available to the natural man!

And, yes, a strict Arminian may be able to agree with Michael’s post, but I find my self becoming almost Pelagian (or semi) in my old age! :0)

I hope that’s only semi-Pelagian! Pelagius taught that the human will alone was enough to free one entirely from sin and its curse. Christ’s only purpose was to serve as a good example, not any kind of savior.

Semi-Pelagian is too often an insult rather than an accurate description, so I prefer not to use it; if you’d like to use it to describe yourself I’ll accept your self-description on your own terms and by your own definition of the term.

I’d expect Semi-Pelagian to mean that you believe that redeemed humans can work to earn the favor of God, and can perform works that earn the condemnation of God. An extreme semi-Pelagian would believe that it’s possible for a mature Christian to become sinless.

-Wm