Thank you for injecting this thought into the discussion. It is a view I hold as well. Between the two extremes of either views, I accept that the truth is somewhere in between and which, when we finally meet our Lord face-to-face and know as we even are known, it will become crystal clear. I just think the absolute truth of it all is much too infinite for our finite minds at this stage. I am content to believe that God IS in control, that all things are evident and open in His sight, that He knows the end from the beginning and that He STILL allows the present to happen according to His good pleasure. I am eternally grateful that He opened my eyes to see His grace and created within me a new heart able to experience all that He works together for my good.
It is intellectually stimulating to discuss these things God has allowed us to know about, but I don't believe He intends us to be at enmity with each other over things we may only be able to nibble at the corners of. If it helps us to further our knowledge and appreciation of God and ourselves within His plan, that's good. If it draws us away to opposing corners in anger at brethren in Christ, it's not so good. Jesus said the world would know us by our love one towards another.
“”I am content to believe that God IS in control, that all things are evident and open in His sight, that He knows the end from the beginning and that He STILL allows the present to happen according to His good pleasure.””
Good point , dear sister
Try looking at it this way explained by Saint Thomas Aquinas from Jacques Maritain translation
http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/gc3_73.htm
That Divine Providence is not inconsistent with Freedom of the Will
THE government of every prudent governor is ordained to the perfection of the things governed, to the gaining, or increasing, of maintenance of that perfection. An element of perfection then is more worthy of being preserved by providence than an element of imperfection and defect. But in inanimate things the contingency of causes comes of imperfection and defect: for by their nature they are determined to one effect, which they always gain, unless there be some let or hindrance arising either from limitation of power, or the interference of some external agent, or indisposition of subject-matter; and on this account natural causes in their action are not indifferent to either side of an alternative, but for the most part produce their effects uniformly, while they fail in a minority of instances. But that the will is a contingent cause comes of its very perfection, because its power is not tied to one effect, but it rests with it to produce this effect or that, wherefore it is contingent either way. * Therefore providence is more concerned to preserve the liberty of the will than to preserve contingency in natural causes.
2. It belongs to divine providence to use things according to their several modes. But a thing’s mode of action depends upon its form, which is the principle of action. But the form whereby a voluntary agent acts is not determinate: for the will acts through a form apprehended by the intellect; and the intellect has not one determined form of effect under its consideration, but essentially embraces a multitude of forms;* and therefore the will can produce multiform effects.
3. The last end of every creature is to attain to a likeness to God (Chap. XVII): therefore it would be contrary to providence to withdraw from a creature that whereby it attains the divine likeness. But a voluntary agent attains the divine likeness by acting freely, as it has been shown that there is free will in God (B. I, Chap. LXXXVIII).
4. Providence tends to multiply good things in the subjects of its government. But if free will were taken away, many good things would be withdrawn. The praise of human virtue would be taken away, which is nullified where good is not done freely: the justice of rewards and punishments would be taken away, if man did not do good and evil freely: wariness and circumspection in counsel would be taken away, as there would be no need of taking counsel about things done under necessity. It would be therefore contrary to the plan of providence to withdraw the liberty of the will.*
Hence it is said: God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel: before man is life and death, whatever he shall please shall be given him (Ecclus xv, 14-17).
Hereby is excluded the error of the Stoics, who said that all things arose of necessity, according to an indefeasible order, which the Greeks called ymarmene (heimarmenê).