The Narrow Path Ministries

There have been many discussions, here and elsewhere, on the Will of God, God's purpose, and how that works in relation to our Free Will. If I may, I'd like to offer the following line of reasoning.

This is from Leslie Weatherhead's booklett The Will of God.

First, there is a division of the subject into three parts:
1 - Intentional Will of God - God's ideal plan for man.
2 - Circumstantial Will of God - God's plan within the circumstances of life on earth.
3 - Ultimate Will of God - God's final realization of His purposes.

Was it God's intention, in the very beginning, that Jesus go to the Cross? God's intention was that men should follow Jesus, not kill Jesus. God's Ideal Purpose was the discipleship of men, not the death of Jesus.

However, circumstances brought about by man's evil set up a scenario that required Christ to either be crucified or to run away. THEN, his death on the cross was God's will, due to the circumstances man caused, in order for God's Intentional Will to be fulfilled.

Finally, God's ultimate will refers to God's purpose, in spite of all we do and cause, despite our evil desires, God's Ultimate Will will prevail. In other words, God cannot be defeated and His purpose will come to pass in the end.

nancyer wrote:Was it God's intention, in the very beginning, that Jesus go to the Cross? God's intention was that men should follow Jesus, not kill Jesus. God's Ideal Purpose was the discipleship of men, not the death of Jesus.

However, circumstances brought about by man's evil set up a scenario that required Christ to either be crucified or to run away. THEN, his death on the cross was God's will, due to the circumstances man caused, in order for God's Intentional Will to be fulfilled.

I disagree with this and think that it minimizes God's omniscience and makes him out to be reactive. (Perhaps Weatherhead is an Open Theist?)

Some theologians talk about God’s antecedent will and his consequent will, and I think this is more biblically sound.

God’s antecedent will for every human is that they would know him and know his salvation. That they would be reconciled to him and enter his kingdom. And that they would live lives that honor and glorify him. However, this does not always come to pass. God’s antecedent will is not always done on earth as it is in heaven.

God’s consequent will, which is conditioned by the free acts of creatures, is set in stone and cannot be frustrated.

Kenneth Keathley's book Salvation and Sovereignty covers this in detail.

Hi nancyer,
The difference is that I would say nothing has ever happened that God did not intend. From the sin in the garden, to the crucifixion of his son, to the coffee that I spilled on the counter this morning.

God's plan, and all that it contains, was set in stone prior to creation. Since God's knowledge is perfect and absolute the plan he put into place included everything that would ever happen: every tornado, blizzard, earthquake, famine, war, heartbreak, birth, death, etc.

Typically, the people who say things happen which God does not intend are open theists since that is consistent with a God who only knows the future as possibilities.

So God's antecedent will is that none would perish but all would have eternal life. And his consequent will is everything that happens--good and bad that works together to bring his mission to fulfillment.

[user account removed]

dizerner wrote:How anyone can say there are not some things God never wanted to happen is beyond me.

Yeah. I agree ... I think?

Yes, the double negative confused me. Is your statement tantamount to the following:

How anyone can say that every thing that happens, God wanted to happen, is beyond me.

TheEditor wrote:I know you've described yourself as a Molinist in the past, and your signature would support that notion. But your above comments seem quite Calvinistic. Where does one "make the cut" so to say? What real distinction is there between the two camps, other than the Molinist position being more hopeful and positive? Take away the hope and positivity of Molinism, and it still reads like Calvin to me.

When discussing God's sovereignty, Molinists do sound a lot like Calvinists. And when discussing free will, Molinists sound a lot like Arminians
Molinisn is actually closer to Arminianism since it says humans are the causal agents behind their choices and their choices are made free of divine coercion. But Molinists recognize that God is providentially at work causing all things to work together so that his purposes and plan will be accomplished. Molinists can affirm that all things are predestined according to God's foreknowledge, but unlike Calvinists, we do not say God causes all things.

dizerner wrote:How anyone can say there are not some things God never wanted to happen is beyond me.

Molinists would say that everything that happens is part of God's plan, even the things God hates, yet permits. God's plan works through the free actions of humans. For example, the sinful actions of Joseph's brothers, Judas, and Pilate resulted in good in God's plan. Does God bring good out of every evil act? I don't know. Perhaps some acts result in no good but are allowed simply because God places such a high value on free will.