Such is suppositional. For me, God is "Infinitely" smarter, as well as wiser, than I. I can tell you, by the logic of your own box, you are hemming yourself into one logical conclusion. Many Open Theists I've met do this, but don't seem to realize there is an incredible amount of data outside their boxes. In this scenario, it really is only 'true if you want it to be.' What I mean is, if by our propositions, we eliminate all else, including what is possible or otherwise probable, then our boxes of theology work.
That may be true. That's why I like to have these discussions, as it gets me to consider where I've hemmed myself in, and hopefully break out of it.
For your later discussion, you inadvertently have 'Fate' having control of God. Whatever is 'out of God's hands' is able to, for however long, to 'thwart' God. Certainly God was there when the Serpent was tempting Eve. He did not stop it. Point: every answer is inadequate and thus the whole premise of the Open theoretical is, for me, a failed attempt. It simply shades the question trying to make it go away.
I think there are a lot of people that TRY to thwart God. And it sometimes appears that they do. Solomon mentioned some of these cases--where the wicked seem to prosper and the good don't always seem to.
In the end, God won't be thwarted. Is there such a thing as an interim thwarting of God? Only if God allows for now, instead of destroying anyone (everyone) at the very thought of sin.
No, that's why I have a problem with Open Theism: Too simplistic of questions and answers. They simply do not work. Good is 'good' until it isn't. Creation 'was' good. Now it isn't. God saw the temptation. If He wanted it stopped and creation to go on as 'good' He could have.
I'm just repeating what scripture was saying. God said it was very good, then He said it was full of violence and He needed to destroy it.
Romans 9, for me, is very clear. The parable of the wheat and tares is clear enough. Calvinism, for me, fits best the way scripture makes sense. All He does is good. I don't believe you can ever find a Calvinist that would say there is any wickedness in God. If so, they are out of the faith. Matthew 10:18 1 John 1:5
But do they ascribe the works of beelzebub to God? Isn't that what we do when we say God ordained everything before any other agents were around?
Matthew 13:24-30; 36-43 Isaiah 44:8,45:5 Romans 9 comes to mind, but there are questions I cannot answer nor am I needing to build a theology system based upon what I can muster by thought that 'must have been.' Saying "God was caught unaware" and thus "made a mistake" to me, is incredibly presumptuous. I never want my theology to try and make excuses for God if it slights Him in any way. He simply does not need me to apologize or explain for Him. What I 'can' do, is stand upon scriptures. Such is helped by knowing languages so we don't build false ideas off of translation conveyances. "God repented" is liberty with Hebrew "to sigh."
No mistakes in my view. God knowing that some would sin might have made it where He needed to facilitate sin up front, in order that everyone <might> be saved. But I'm just not getting where you (or they) think open theism needs a mistaken God for the view to work.
And the "sigh" defense is quite lacking, as I've said before. If sighing means that He was at time going to do one thing and then decided to do something different, it's no different from repenting.
All three of your possibilities, inadvertently have God as responsible. Every Open Theist I've talked to, have said God made man that way (to choose his own destiny). Without realizing it, Open Theists become more than Calvinist. Surely you've seen this before. Every attempt at side-stepping from these questions/problems/accusations, amplifies the problem once they are brought under scrutiny.
Two things: one, you are scapegoating trying to pass the buck 'to that guy' and thinking you don't have to come up with an answer for the same accusation. God 'allowed' it to happen, under Open Theism such that you've gained nothing for becoming an Open Theist. The only thing the Open Theist does is 1) embrace something that 'makes sense to me' which isn't well thought out and 2) simply moves the goal post of 'when' God knows and subsequently 'allows' something. It helps not at all. I'd rather wrestle by not questioning the attributes of God given in the Bible.
First of all, God put that tree there. Was He negligent for doing so? Inept? Was it one of those "Oh, I shouldn't have put it there!" moments? Know what you are voting for as well as all the holes in such a theory. Something between us: I accept, by faith, that God is good, despite what any given situation looks like. Making God blind to happenings is 'less' relational. The Open premise has God unaware, then incapable of intervening, by their reasoning and explanation.
I don't know. Again, it is the strength of my theological stance, that I don't have to know, nor worry about the answer. I know, emphatically Hebrews 11:6 Trying then, to answer with a rationalized answer isn't what is best for me. It is a rational faith, but God has not answered every single question.
Most of what is evil, is a warping of what is good. You can eat dandelions. Planting them where they will kill and dwarf other plants is what makes them bad.
God had to predict the warping if His good creation is warped (I think we agree it is), and account for it. But God wouldn't necessarily have to predict who or what would do which part of the warping.
I acknowledge much of the passing of the buck/scapegoating. I can see it when I try to make sense of some things.
Again, the cross is a loving action but He is a divider of those living and those perishing.
As I've mentioned above on your #2 choice, it ultimately has God being too human for its apology and/or speculation for God. It just doesn't work.
Even in Open Theism, God ordains all, it is simply a matter of 'when' for them. God sees and can intervene, stop, etc. any time He desires. Because He does not? --> "Ordained" even in Open Theism.
God can't just intervene and stop any time He desires in Calvinism. All of His desires are accounted for from the beginning and planned out from the beginning. All of His intervening is predetermined.
And the "when" is VERY important. If God plans a punishment for a sin that not only hasn't been committed, but also has been conceived nor even has a conceiver, what is He actually dealing with? His own plans. There's no one else around "before the beginning". No one. Just God. Planning what He's going to do about this terrible curse He's going to cause to happen to a people that don't exist.
The verse in question does stand against Open Theism. Again, I can do good things and they are good, REGARDLESS of what another does against those good acts. All God's acts are good. Look at it this way: God could have simply wiped out the world and started over,
Which He did
could have rewired man, or could have intervened to keep it from happening in the first place OR Open Theism strips God of His power, intelligence, goodness, and capability thus: "well-meaning, but inept." I realize you and others distance from Sanders, Boyd, and etc. but they logically faced the end of their logic systematics. For them, it was either embrace that, or have to embrace Calvinism terms.
I think the ineptitude is purely in your mind. If God really is like this, would you call it inept?
I believe the logical end of Open Theism IS as Sanders agrees. However distant you desire to be, I don't believe any Open Theist 'can' escape the obvious conclusion Sanders gives.
That may be, but I believe the logical end of Calvinism is also as Sanders agrees. Out of the frying pan into the fire, perhaps.
Well, that's a bit Calvinistic, really. Do you realize what you are saying here?
Agree, but there is no need for the Open take. All of our theologies embrace this.
Sure, when you separate the first part from the second. But kept together, not all handle it as well. That's the job of a systematic theology, isn't it, to handle the whole and not just piece-parts?
Ordination is not 'making' it happen. It is decreeing it like and thus: "So be it, this is what I will do."
Ummmm...isn't that what I was saying? Decreeing (thus "ordination", according to you) is not
just making it happen, it's ensuring it will happen--through force if necessary. Feel free to look it up.
God is still in control, it is a matter of the order of things, but an Open Theist acquiesces this is God's universe most of the time. Such has biblical and logical consequences. Ordination doesn't mean "I made this happen." It DOES mean Colossians 1:17 "I sustained this by my power." Example/explanation: I create a car and gas. I ordained and sustained the driving actions thereof (especially in hindsight, for me).
This describes the condition, but not 'how' such a condition was accomplished.
And "I ordained driving through a red light and hitting a pedestrian, killing her and causing her baby to be injured, put in foster care, molested by an older foster kid, and end up on skid row"? If it's all things, let's make sure we deal with ALL things. God offered an answer to these problems, but if God ordained them, then they're not "problems".
Now you're the one making God inept. God causes all things to
work together for good..., not God causes all things to BE good.
You know decree = ordination? A few theological mistakes are caused by grammar, I'm convinced.
Yes. That's my point. If God decrees all things from before He created all things, then God must be decreeing/ordaining sin. He must then be the author of sin. But if another agent is in the picture, and the agent does those things, God has a few choices, as you pointed out, about what to do about the sin that other agent is committing. He can react immediately, or He can wait for the sin to fester, or He can wait for repentance. And He can redeem. In the end, God's will will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Currently that's not always the case.
Again, the ONLY thing the Open Theist manages to escape, is putting things off for another day. That is, the whole premise of Open Theism is set up to avoid these. They invariably simply say "oh that's the Calvinist" or "Oh, that's the Arminian" and never fully realize "No, that's theology and you Open Theists are simply avoiding/putting off for tomorrow what you don't want to answer today."
I see Open Theism as a 'putting it off for later or when I can sit down to think about it' theology. There are some slight of hand moves when trying to scapegoat, but it can never be seen as a viable theology when it avoids every single problem instead of hitting them head-on. There can be no 'Open Theology' without addressing instead of trying to sidestep what is impossible to sidestep. In the end, almost every question thrown at my theological doorstep will have to be first, understood to invariably apply equally to Open Theism, and second, will have to be adequately and sufficiently addressed by Open Theism. "God didn't know" is not the right answer.
As soon as there's another agent involved, it resolves the issue of whether God is the author of sin. If that's the later you're talking about, I agree wholeheartedly. If there isn't that "later", then sin is God's handiwork--from before the foundation of the world.
