Would God Lead Me To Marry The Person Of HIS Choice? (Reconciling God’s Will & God’s Knowledge)

            Some marriage related questions in young people are:

            1. I want to marry a girl according to God’s will, but would God will that I marry girl ‘A’ and not girl ‘B’?

            2. Does God know who I would marry?

            3. Would God lead me to marry the boy of HIS choice?   

   

            Consider a young girl’s prayer to God to lead her to marry the boy of HIS choice. This prayer presupposes that God knows which boy is the best possible fit for this young girl. Another presupposition is that God would intervene and lead this young girl to marry the boy of HIS choice.

            The first presupposition is predicated on God’s knowledge and HIS will. The second presupposition is predicated on God’s intervention in human affairs. 

            In order for God to lead a young person to marry according to HIS will, God should know who this young person should marry. Thus there is an overlap between God’s knowledge and God’s will.

            Three broad questions are in order for a greater understanding of God:

            (1) Does God have a specific plan for your life and mine? Is there a God’s will for you and me?

            (2) Would God intervene in my affairs and enable me to do HIS will?

            (3) Would God foreknow our choices?

            First, does God have a specific plan for your life and mine? Most surely, yes! While affirming God’s plan for our lives, Dr. William Lane Craig asserts that we have the freedom to make our choices, and he advises us as to how we could do the will of God:¹

God has promised to guide us along life’s path.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. (Proverbs 3.5-6)

A man’s mind plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps. (Proverbs 16.10)…

I suspect that those who oppose the idea of a specific plan of God for your life are reacting against a sort of divine determinism, according to which God moves us about like toy soldiers on His playing field to do His will. But affirming that God has a vocation for your life or a mate in mind for you in no way implies that we are puppets. We have the freedom to do God’s will or not. Even Paul could say, “I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision” through which he received his calling to become an apostle (Acts 26.19). Indeed, the fact that we can miss the will of God for our lives and have to settle for His backup plan underlines the importance of walking in the Spirit, not grieving the Spirit through sin in our lives or quenching the Spirit by failing to respond to His guidance. None of us perfectly lives out God’s plan for his life, but God can still guide you from whatever juncture in life you are at.

            Second, would God intervene in my affairs and enable me to do HIS will? Yes!

            To say that God cannot intervene in human affairs is to question God’s immanence (i.e. God is inactive or not with us) or God’s omniscience (i.e. God does not know what to do) or HIS omnipotence (i.e. God is powerless).

            In the Old Testament, Joseph’s life was a testimony to God’s intervention in human affairs. For example, the instance where Joseph was betrayed by his brothers was a part of God’s plan (cf. Genesis 50:20).

            In the New Testament, Jesus did not idle in a corner, waiting for people to become HIS disciples. He intervened in the lives of HIS disciples when HE called them to become HIS disciples.

            Similarly, the resurrected Lord Jesus intervened in the life of Saul while he was on the road to Damascus (Acts 22: 6ff).

            Today, Jesus appears in dreams and visions. Thus HE intervenes in your life and mine.

            God’s intervention in human affairs is in both tangible and intangible forms. The intangible intervention of God is when HE ministers to us through a gentle whisper (cf. 1 Kings 19:12).

            Third, would God foreknow our choices? I ate cornflakes for breakfast today. Would God have known yesterday that I would eat cornflakes today? Yes, God most certainly knows why, when, and what we would do in the future.

            Does that mean I was determined to eat cornflakes? Did I not choose (based on my free will) to eat cornflakes?

            Just because God knows what we are going to do in the future does not mean that we are determined by God to do them. Dr. William Lane Craig clarifies this predicament:²

If God foreknows everything that happens including our choices then are we really free to do otherwise than as God foreknows we shall do? In other words, does God’s foreknowledge imply a kind of theological fatalism about the future that everything that happens happens necessarily. I argued that that conclusion does not follow so long as we keep clear the distinction between the chronological priority of God’s knowledge to the event foreknown but the logical or explanatory priority of the event foreknown to God’s knowledge. God’s knowledge does not determine the event. If we use the language of “determine” we would say that the event determines what God foreknows.

So when Judas’ betrayal was predicted by Jesus, Judas had the ability not to betray Jesus. He did not have to do it. But if he had chosen not to betray Jesus then God would have foreknown that instead and Jesus would not have predicted it. So we have the ability to do other than as God foreknows that we shall do, but if we were to do other than as he foreknows that we shall do then he would have foreknown something else instead. So long as we keep that distinction between chronological and logical priority clear I think we can see that God’s foreknowing the future doesn’t in any way threaten human freedom.

            Thus, we have the freedom to make choices and God knows our choices.

            So the following is clear:

            (1) God has a specific plan for you and me. That includes education, marriage, occupation et al.

            (2) God could also intervene in our affairs to enable us to do HIS will.

            (3) God knows our choices even before we decide.

            Although God knows our choices, our choices need not necessarily be according to HIS will and pleasure. We are more than capable of disobeying God. When we disobey God, we would not be doing his perfect and pleasing will for our lives. God has blessed us with free will, which enables us to accept or reject God’s plan for our lives.

            So those who pray to ask God to lead them to meet the person of HIS choice should walk in the Spirit and not grieve the Spirit of God by willfully ignoring or sinning against HIM.

            We are not done yet.

            There is a very important learning awaiting us.

            God’s will need not always result in a perfect, joyful and blissful wedded life.

            Remember Hosea? Hosea was a prophet in the Old Testament who was instructed by God to marry a prostitute named Gomer.

            How would Hosea’s married life have been? Not in any way perfect, joyful, or anything close to that.

            Interestingly and not surprisingly, that was God’s will for Hosea!

            In order to comprehend this and more, read Dr. William Lane Craig’s answer to multiple questions regarding marriage: [Emphasis Mine]³

Question:

Hi Dr. Craig,

I'd like to probe you more on your views of divine providence and marriage in particular. I believe you've said that God has a specific marriage partner intended for each person (unless perhaps that person is somehow called to celibacy).

This seems on the surface implausible, as from personal experience from many people there are many apparently suitable partners that one could marry. On your view then, would things somehow not be as good if one marries some other seemingly suitable partner? How could anyone know if the person they married is the 'right' one and that they didn't miss meeting someone better?

Does your view also mean that some people who are single haven't met or won't meet the right person because the partners they were meant to marry married someone else (perhaps because these partners were disobedient to God's direction, or made a mistake etc)?

Answer:

It’s important to note that my claim that God does have in mind a specific person for you to marry…So, of course, His plan for your life will include the monumentally important choice of whom you shall marry. Moreover, God has promised to guide us through life, so that as we walk in the fullness of the Holy Spirit, we shall not wander from the plan He has for us.

Now you say such a doctrine is prima facie “implausible.” Why? Because based on experience there seem to be “many apparently suitable partners that one could marry.” This objection evinces a drastic misunderstanding of what I affirmed. I have no doubt that there are many people you might marry who would be wonderful partners, resulting in a fulfilling and God-honoring marriage. But that fact is in no way inconsistent with the claim that God has in mind one specific person He wants you to marry.

What underlies your objection is, I think, the assumption that God’s only grounds for preferring one person rather than another is suitability. That seems obviously false. Think, for example, of the children you will beget and their progeny and theirs, on and on into the future. Your descendants are utterly unique. The course of world history shifts based on the person you marry in ways that are beyond our discernment.

Moreover, —and here I raise a radical thought—suppose God wants you to marry someone who is not well-suited to you…we have a natural tendency to think that God’s purpose for human life is to make us happy. But on the Christian view that is not true. The Bible says, “This is the will of God, your sanctification” (I Thessalonians 4.3). You may be brought more into conformity to the character of Christ by suffering in a marriage that is not what you dreamed it would be. God commanded Hosea to marry a prostitute (Hosea 1.2)! We’re all broken people psychologically, and God may work in you or your spouse’s life through each other’s shortcomings, as you both learn to forbear and forgive. God has much wider things to achieve in this world than our happiness, and the partner He picks for you will be the person with whom you can best advance the interests of His kingdom.

So on my view, would things not be as “good” if you were to disobey God’s will and marry the wrong person? That depends on what you mean by “good.” I suspect you mean that if you disobeyed God, would your marriage be less happy and fulfilling? Based on what I’ve just said, the answer is obviously, not necessarily! But the overall goodness of the world or the interests of God’s kingdom may well be impaired by such a disobedient choice.

“How could anyone know if the person they married is the 'right' one and that they didn't miss meeting someone better?” We have the confidence that as we walk in the power of the Holy Spirit, God will guide our steps. So we need to focus on being the right person ourselves rather than on finding the right person. Certainty is never possible, but there’s no need to worry: just focus on being an obedient, Sprit-filled Christian and trust Him to lead you.

With respect to your last question, “Does your view also mean that some people who are single haven't met or won't meet the right person because the partners they were meant to marry married someone else (perhaps because these partners were disobedient to God's direction, or made a mistake etc)?”, keep in mind that God via His middle knowledge knew of that person’s disobedience in advance and so has a plan for your life that takes that into account. You might have similarly asked, “What if the person God intended for me to marry was never born because her parents were disobedient and failed to conceive her?” We needn’t rack our brains about such dizzying scenarios because God knew that such a person would not be born and so would not be His intended will for you. Similarly, a person who, had she been obedient, would have been God’s intended for you is not in fact God’s intended precisely because she was disobedient.

The bottom line is: don’t focus on finding the right person; focus on becoming the right person.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/guidance-and-gods-plan/

²https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-god-attributes-of-god/doctrine-of-god-part-15/

³https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/does-god-have-a-specific-marriage-partner-for-you/

Websites last accessed on 10^th June 2020.

The Universe Came Out Of Nothing: True Or False?

            Big Bang Cosmology is the most widely accepted explanation for the beginning of our universe. However, some atheists claim that our universe came out of nothing and that quantum mechanics provides an explanation for the same.

Did Our Universe Come Out Of Nothing?

            Atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss’ book A Universe from Nothing (published in 2012) posits science’s explanation for the origin of our universe from nothing and that God is unnecessary to understand the origin of our universe.

            Krauss’ posits the origin of the universe from nothing, “…we're now at a point where we can plausibly argue that a universe full of stuff came from a very simple beginning, the simplest of all beginnings: nothing.”¹ He goes on to add, “I don't think I argued that physics has definitively shown how something could come from nothing; physics has shown how plausible physical mechanisms might cause this to happen…We don't know how something can come from nothing, but we do know some plausible ways that it might.

            But I am certainly claiming a lot more than just that. That it's possible to create particles from no particles is remarkable—that you can do that with impunity, without violating the conservation of energy and all that, is a remarkable thing.”²

            So Krauss’ claim is two-fold:

            1. It is possible to create particles from nothing. (Hence, he alludes to a beginning of our universe from nothing.)

            2. However, physics has not definitively shown how something could come from nothing.

            At the outset, these claims seem to contradict each other.

            If we were to combine both these statements into one, then this is what we understand of Krauss’ claim: We could suppose that our universe came from nothing because it is theoretically possible, and physics does explain how particles could be created from nothing. But physics has not definitively shown how something could come from nothing. 

            So my conclusion as a layman is: until physics definitively shows how something can come from nothing, I will still believe that something cannot come from nothing. Hence, our universe could not have come from nothing.

Quantum Mechanics Does Not Explain The Origin Of Universe From Nothing

            Interestingly, some scientists claim that the nothing that Krauss speaks of is not literally nothing!

            David Albert is a theoretical physicist who has written a book, along with numerous articles on quantum mechanics. He claims that the term nothing does not mean literally nothing, “Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right…And if what we formerly took for nothing turns out, on closer examination, to have the makings of protons and neutrons and tables and chairs and planets and solar systems and galaxies and universes in it, then it wasn’t nothing, and it couldn’t have been nothing, in the first place. …”³

            Another prominent scientist, George Ellis considered as one of the leading theorists in cosmology, who has authored a book on quantum theory quashes Krauss when he was asked whether Krauss was right to claim that physics has solved the mystery of why there is something rather than nothing:⁴

Certainly not. He is presenting untested speculative theories of how things came into existence out of a pre-existing complex of entities, including variational principles, quantum field theory, specific symmetry groups, a bubbling vacuum, all the components of the standard model of particle physics, and so on. He does not explain in what way these entities could have pre-existed the coming into being of the universe, why they should have existed at all, or why they should have had the form they did. And he gives no experimental or observational process whereby we could test these vivid speculations of the supposed universe-generation mechanism. How indeed can you test what existed before the universe existed? You can’t.

Thus what he is presenting is not tested science. It’s a philosophical speculation, which he apparently believes is so compelling he does not have to give any specification of evidence that would confirm it is true. Well, you can’t get any evidence about what existed before space and time came into being. Above all he believes that these mathematically based speculations solve thousand year old philosophical conundrums, without seriously engaging those philosophical issues. The belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy. As pointed out so well by Eddington in his Gifford lectures, they are partial and incomplete representations of physical, biological, psychological, and social reality.

And above all Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence). Who or what dreamt up symmetry principles, Lagrangians, specific symmetry groups, gauge theories, and so on? He does not begin to answer these questions.

            So science is yet to definitively prove that our universe came out of nothing.

            Lawrence Krauss’s book was published in 2012. Can we be sure that science is yet to definitively prove that our universe came from nothing?

            Dr. William Lane Craig in November 2018, while answering a question Did the Universe Begin with Nothing? affirms the necessity for a cause for the beginning of our universe: [Emphasis mine]⁵

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe did not begin with nothing in the sense that at first there was nothing and then the universe came into being. Here a little philosophy of language is helpful:  The word “nothing” is not a singular term referring to something. Rather it is a quantifier, a term of universal negation, just like “nobody,” “nowhere,” “no one,” etc.  It means “not anything.”

So when cosmologists say that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang, they do NOT mean that there was something prior to it, and that was a state of nothingness. Rather they mean that there was not anything prior to the Big Bang.

So time and the universe start with the first physical state of affairs, before which there was not anything. This is, in fact, the view that you quite rightly want to affirm. The question is, what is causally (not temporally) prior to that first physical state? I have in my published work given reasons why it is not plausible that that first physical state came to be uncaused.

In saying that the universe came into being at the first moment of its existence, I am not presupposing a prior state of nothing but rather affirming that the fact of the universe’s beginning to exist is a tensed fact…on a tensed theory of time, according to which temporal becoming is real, the need for a cause of the first state of the universe becomes, I think, patent because that is the moment at which the universe comes into being.

            Furthermore in 2019, Dr. Craig in response to a question What Is the Universe Expanding into? affirms that the atheist ought to explain how the universe came into being without a cause. Thus he implies that the atheist scientists are still clueless about defending the notion that our universe came into being from nothing:⁶

According the (sic) Big Bang theory, the universe is not expanding into anything…So as you trace the expansion back in time, you eventually come to a place where all distances shrink to zero, and space disappears (or begins to exist). It’s not that the universe disappears at that point, and the empty space in which it was expanding is still there. No, there is nothing prior to that point because it is space itself which is expanding. Just as there is not anything prior to the universe’s beginning, so there is not anything into which it is expanding. The difficulty for the atheist, then, is to explain how the universe could come into existence without a cause.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/

²Ibid.

³https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html

⁴https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-george-ellis-knocks-physicists-for-knocking-philosophy-falsification-free-will/

⁵https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/did-the-universe-begin-with-nothing/

⁶https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P600/what-is-the-universe-expanding-into/

Websites last accessed on 5^th June 2020.