God Grants Free Will and Also Determines Its Distant Consequences

We were intrigued by a situation in which God directs various events so that the outcomes He desires come into existence regardless of the costs or the individual decisions of people or even entire groups. God gives free will to individuals, yet He also requires that certain results emerge from those decisions so that His plan can manifest.

1. The Problem: How can free will be reconciled with God’s plan?

This question touches one of the oldest and most difficult problems in the philosophy of religion. Does a person truly have free will if God still leads the world toward a predetermined goal? Three key concepts appear in the background:

A. Free will – the ability to make decisions that are not reducible to determinism or coercion.
B. Divine providence – the belief that God acts throughout history and directs the world toward a particular goal.
C. God’s plan – the notion that all reality moves toward a final purpose intended by God. According to us, God’s plan leads toward the ordering of all matters and all relationships.

Let us assume that God allows free decisions to exist without abandoning His ultimate purposes.

God directs events in such a way that, despite human choices and the decisions of Souls themselves, the final outcome remains aligned with His intention. This is very close to doctrines such as Molinism, concurrence, strong providence, or concepts from Judaism and Islam that connect the “Book of Destiny” with human choices.

2. Potential models of this situation

Model A: God’s plan is unalterable, and free will is relative.
In this model:

• God knows all possible human decisions.
• According to Edgar Cayce, the decisions themselves are not as important as their consequences, and nothing happens without God’s knowledge of the final effect.
• Therefore, God designs the world so that every possible path of choices leads to the final goal, though by different routes and with different consequences.

Human free will and the free will of the Soul coexist with God’s determination regarding the appearance of certain outcomes. Here, free will is real, but it operates within a “scenario” whose distant finale was set long ago.

One example is sexual scarcity. A low amount of sex may mean one encounter per month or only twice a day. Repeated affirmations or complaints bring abundance in the future—perhaps ten encounters a day—and the inevitable emergence of male and female prostitution. Through karmic pathways, this again leads to celibacy, and also to incarnations such as male ants or honey insects that lose their reproductive organs—and their lives—after mating.

Thus every being and every person is responsible for their choices. The ultimate plan manifests regardless of whether individuals choose good or evil. The costs may include suffering, moral downfall, conflict—but they are “built into” the possible variants of this scenario.

This approach resolves the logical tension but raises another question: is such freedom truly creative freedom?

Model B: God does not predetermine events, but He guarantees the result.

This model resembles concepts of strong providence discussed in narrative theology or the idea that “God plays chess with full knowledge of the future and the player’s next move.”

Souls and people can choose as they wish. God intervenes at key moments to correct the trajectory of history so that His plan is fulfilled. God may use natural processes, other people, coincidences, inspirations, or even suffering as corrective tools.

For example: a person may reject a calling or divine prompting, but God will “redirect” history through another person or another circumstance so that the global plan is completed.

A self-emerging example here is Jesus. The physical effect of His messianic presence in Poland is the “harem” attributed to Him. Between 2000 and 2025, He was liturgically “married” in Polish churches to around 400 women. Another effect is alcoholism: there are about 700,000 Christian priests worldwide. Each day every priest drinks a teaspoon of Christ’s freshly consecrated blood. This amounts to roughly 40,000 liters of blood daily. And first, this volume of wine must be processed through His circulatory system.

3. Is free will authentic in such a system?

It depends on the interpretation:

• “Internal” free will (psychological): a person experiences full responsibility. Their decisions feel authentic; they do not feel like robots.
• “Absolute” free will (metaphysical): does not exist, because God limits the possible results. A person may change the path, but not the ultimate destination of history.

Many religions do not assume absolute freedom; they assume freedom within a divine order.

4. Does God bear responsibility for the costs?

This is an ethical question. If God allows human suffering as part of fulfilling His plan, is He morally justified?

This is something one should ask God—why is it so and why did it unfold this way? What factors influenced it? God will answer quite simply through karmic memories, for example through the Polish regression technique called “Regresing.” Christians and Buddhists generally do not wish to confront their past lives. People with karma tied to the Third Reich often seek this path spontaneously.

The answers differ depending on the tradition, meaning in practice: depending on the influence of other people’s beliefs, not on God Himself.

Classical approach – suffering may be a consequence of free decisions.
“God writes straight on crooked lines,” turning evil into good.

Pessimistic approach – if the plan requires enormous costs, free will may be only apparent—humans become a means, not the end.

Contemporary theological approach – God co-suffers with humans. Suffering is not a tool but a consequence of a world with freedom.

Here (S.M.) I disagree. I observe human Souls incarnated as animals and plants. A visit of an animal to a slaughterhouse cannot be suffering for God—He would not withstand it given the sheer scale of killed beings on Earth. Therefore it is logical that He does not take suffering, diseases, poverty, or the consequences of sexual deviations upon Himself—but He can remove them from an individual.

5. The most coherent philosophical interpretation — and the most commonly accepted modern compromise — is:

Human free will concerns moral and personal decisions, but the direction of history was set by God long ago.

An example is boys placing coins on the tracks before a moving train. The train will not stop nor reverse.

Human choices influence their own lives and local events, but they cannot change the world’s final destination. What we choose affects the state in which we arrive there—and how we influence others, as well as how our relationship with God unfolds.

Authors: Konrad Jaszowski, J.S. Majda

Opublikowano: 07/12/2025
Autor: s_majda
Kateogrie: God

Comments