Does God always make the best choices?

[KyleB]

Forget about God, are we free to make a choice that is less than "best"?

Of course, people make stupid decisions all the time. In hindsight, people will admit that their own choices were stupid. But this seems to be due to a lack of knowledge/wisdom. If you had complete knowledge, you could make the right decision all the time. If you had complete knowledge and wisdom, you would always make the right decision. A person might be wise but lack knowledge, so they make what they think is the best choice, but their ignorance leads them astray.

Would we say that someone that was perfectly knowledgeable and wise was forced by nature to make the right decision? I don't think so, I think it is more a definition of wisdom. If somebody makes a poor choice, then it shows a lack of wisdom, therefore their wisdom was not perfect. Why else would someone knowingly choose what they know to be less than the best? Foolishness is the only answer that comes to my mind.

If saying that God chooses not to ever be foolish somehow "limits" Him, then I guess He is limited by His own nature. But I don't see it that way at all.

P.S. Of course the question of "what is best?" still remains, but if God has all knowledge, then He would know the answer to that question, even if we don't.

[Paidion]

I'd like to address the following:

Does the fact that God is essentially holy and morally perfect necessarily limit his choices?

Can God's character limit his choices? I suppose His character wouldn't give room for morally evil choices, but would they give room for an “inferior” choice? Would answering this question “no” be inconsistent with God's omnipotence? I don't know the answer.

Homer, from God's perspective I think the best option would be the option that brings God the greatest glory and most effectively accomplishes his perfect will.

I'm not certain that God does only that which brings Him the greatest glory. He loves others so much that many of His acts are for the benefit of others. Would He say to Himself? “Let's see. I think I'll refrain from intervening with that nose-diving plane. That way I'll get more glory than if I brought the plane in for a smooth landing.” Let's face it! If He doesn't intervene, who is going to give Him glory? Many people will do the opposite. They will blame Him, “Why did God allow that plane to crash and kill my spouse and all my children?” If He HAD intervened with a miracle, isn't that when people would glorify God?

When God chooses not to stop an airplane that is nose-diving to the earth can we assume that his choice not to intervene is "best"? (This is the way I see it.)

I'm not at all certain that God's not intervening with the nose-diving plane is a choice on God's part. What could be “best” about His not intervening. Would He be trying to punish some or all of those in the plane? Or maybe their surviving relatives? What possible purpose in God's economy could this non-intervention serve?

Unfortunately, too many people interpret such events as God's punishment. But Jesus suggested by questioning, that the people on whom the tower fell were no worse sinners than others who didn't face such a death.

Then why does God seldom intervene with nose-diving planes, the torture and killing of people, people severely beating their spouses, the rape and murder of little girls — in short — all the suffering and atrocities in the world? It's the age-old philosophical question.

My view is that if He intervenes too often with the natural course of events, nose-diving planes, tsunamis, lightning storms, people falling off bridges, etc., then we would never know whether natural forces were going to operate in a consistent way or not. Or it might throw nature completely out of balance. So God usually doesn't interfere with natural forces.

Concerning man's inhumanity to man, God has created man in His own image, the chief aspect of which may be libertarian free will. He normally doesn't intevene with man's free will, because His over-all plan is that man my choose to submit to Christ, not by coercion but through his own free choice.

[steve7150]

My view is that if He intervenes too often with the natural course of events, nose-diving planes, tsunamis, lightning storms, people falling off bridges, etc., then we would never know whether natural forces were going to operate in a consistent way or not. Or it might throw nature completely out of balance. So God usually doesn't interfere with natural forces.









Perhaps and also we learn most things by contrast & without calamity or even evil we would never learn and experience what God wants for us to learn.

[Paidion]

Perhaps and also we learn most things by contrast & without calamity or even evil we would never learn and experience what God wants for us to learn.

But then, Steve, if there were no calamity or evil, it wouldn't be necessary to overcome these, would it? So what would there be to learn? — other than an increasing experience of God's love.

[steve7150]

But then, Steve, if there were no calamity or evil, it wouldn't be necessary to overcome these, would it? So what would there be to learn? — other than an increasing experience of God's love.










I think without contrasting love with hate or indifference we couldn't really appreciate love. I think that's how God has wired us to learn, by experiencing contrast.
Additionally overcoming obstacles is something God wants us to learn IMHO.