>>18511409
Even Deism is, in a sense, Providentialist, since it supposes that all the rules of reality were supremely fixed according to perfection.
If I, personally, were starting from a deist position, I would have to concede that an omnipotent God setting the universe in motion would, of a necessity, have set it in motion "perfectly," which would include all things unfolding HOW they did. Which is why I'm not a Deist. Deism was, in practice (since no one is a "serious" Deist any more), a way for Enlightenment thinkers (who were otherwise beholden to empiricism) to cleave to Christian morality which is founded on the presupposition of a divine moral truth.
Recall:
>and we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal, and ENDOWED by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights
which was a strongly held belief of every Deist American Founder. Sometimes even Deists would break and invoke "providence" in certain circumstances.

God allows things to happen, and thus they can be said they are in accord with his passive will.
He also deliberately makes certain things happen, in accord with his active will.

But conflating these two as if he is a child playing with dolls and actively makes everything that has ever transpired turn out the way it does is just wrong on it's face.
This would entirely nullify the human will, without which true obedience, the highest virtue of love which entails voluntarily giving up your own life, and forgiveness itself are categorically impossible.

And it would diminish his creation, and himself as creator.
God created a world where these things (obedience, charity, forgiveness) are possible for men, not one where he must personally do absolutely everything himself and only pretend as if these men he forced to sin are truly guilty.

Moral responsibility, which men are duly judged by God because of, demands real agency.
This agency itself, it's existence is in accord with his will even if he reserves the right to override it in specific cases.
Basically, it's his will that you be capable of actual disobedience. Consider the example of a parent allowing their child to make a mistake or flaunt their rules, as a learning opportunity. Basically, any good parent knows that they have to support and cultivate their child's natural autonomy in order for them to eventually face the world on their own. They must experience the consequences of their actions.
These other aforementioned cases are to be understood as being under exceptional circumstances and entailing certain purposes (for example those historically relating to the incarnation), not the iron rule which applies to all no matter what.

>>18511491
>But conflating these two as if he is a child playing with dolls and actively makes everything that has ever transpired turn out the way it does is just wrong on it's face.
this is also true.
I wouldn't submit to such stark dichotomies anyways.
I had a friend once who was really wracking his head around "free will vs determinism" and I just said it's "both, practically." He looked at me like I'm retarded but for all intents and purposes it's really both. "One or the other?" has no answer.

>>18511495
Compatibilism is the most sane kind of response to this kind of materialist dilemma.
To me, all the choices you ever made were accomplished simultaneously.

That's how I have to imagine God's perspective on it, as being transcendent.
We're just experiencing the consequences in time, so that they are more or less intelligible to our limited faculties.

Now, certain men have greater or lesser mental and physical strength than others.
To them, greater responsibility for their choice is given. Because their own capabilities mean they may attain to greater things.
I do not think someone who is developmentally disabled and has cognitive impairment is necessarily held to the same moral standard as a wealthy and healthy man in his prime who is possessed of reason. That kind of man has choices open to him that the other cannot conceive of. One is far more capable than the other, and yet I would say both are equally more esteemed by God than lower forms of animal life because they are both in Adam. It's not to say the first is somehow incapable of personal (rather than original) sin, it's just that what this would look like might be known only to God.

It is the place of the strong to guarantee the weak, for the young to care for the old, just as when they were babes themselves were given suck.
Insofar as people neglect these responsibilities or duties, which come with power, the more severe judgement is upon them. Thus you see Jesus condemn the Korban, because it results in people neglecting their elderly parents.

But really, this is a kind of vain speculation on my part.
It's not my place to speak to the divine judgement.