But let us not forget the unsettled theist's own linkages
here.
Is 'unsettled theist' pejorative also? You complain about short posts. You better read this one.
Open Theists believe creation is partially open/unsettled and partially closed/settled.
This does not unsettle a sovereign, omnicompetent God who can providentially control without meticulous control.
Sproul wrongly assumes that God must have unilateral control to be sovereign. If He does not, he even says He cannot be God?!
(paraphrases/thoughts from Boyd "Satan and the problem of evil" p. 147)
Why should we accept this understanding of divine sovereignty? There is no rational or biblical reason to assume that sovereignty must or should entail exhaustive, meticulous, divine control. Why would God cease to be God (Sproul's assumption) because He decided to created something He did not meticulously control?
This view restricts God's omnipotence to one possible mode of behavior: unilateral control. God must control everything in order to exist?! Cmon, Sproul and AMR. Why should we assume this is the most exalted, let alone the only conceivable, form of sovereignty?
Can we not conceive of a God who is so great (omnicompetent vs omnicausal...I like that) that he dares to create agents who can, to some extent, make autonomous decisions (significant others with a say-so, as Sanders says). Can we not conceive of a God who might choose to experience risk, adventure, novelty, change?
Scripture says that God experiences surprise and disappointment. This fits a providential, warfare vs blueprint model and takes revelation at face value. Can we imagine God growing tired of controlling or simply foreknowing everything in meticulous detail from all eternity? Does this make it possible for Him to respond better than simply based on His great character and attributes? We are in the image of God and desire novelty, risk, adventure. Why should we limit God to fatalistic, fixed boredom?
Sovereignty as control is unwarranted and not true sovereignty. It is hard to conceive of a weaker God than one who would be threatened by events by puny man outside of His direct control. It is difficult to imagine a less majestic view of God than one who is necessarily limited to a unilateral, deterministic mode of relating to the universe (which view is limiting God and underestimating His great ability and seeing things through the image of man? watch your accusations, AMR. Your view of God is actually a lesser view than OT). Sproul insists that God could not create a world with some openness, novelty, adventure, even if He wanted to. This is not a contradiction like exhaustive foreknowledge and free will. It is an unusually ignorant statement to say God would cease to be God if He created a world that was not hyper-sovereign and deterministic?! Power is about choices. A wrong view robs God of choice and omnipotence.
A view that says God cannot be God without exhaustive definite foreknowledge also limits God (necessary attribute). The idea of a partially open future is not a logical contradiction. This is the type of world God actualized (unless you make this motif figurative, without warrant), so the corollary is that EDF is not possible, even for an omniscient God. So, you beg the question to assume God must have EDF and must create a deterministic universe, despite the evidence to the contrary (theodicy ring a bell)?
It is not a supremely praiseworthy form of sovereignty to be a control freak, nor is it necessary for God to bring His sovereign purposes to pass. Even if God just chose to be this way, it is still not meritorious. I have absolute power over my little finger, but this does not make me praiseworthy on this basis. God could control everything if He wanted to, since it is His creation, just as my finger is my finger and I could control it. Apply this to a human ruler over subjects or parents over children. Love, freedom, and relationship are to be valued over raw control, a sign of weakness and insecurity.
There is nothing instrinsically praiseworthy about sheer power. Praise has to do with character.
** "What is praiseworthy about God's sovereignty is not that He exercises a power He obviously has but that out of His character He does NOT exercise all the power He could."
This is a voluntary self-limitation by the sovereign God to have love vs robotic relationships, not reducing God to man's image (finite godism/Process is NOT OT).
Our understanding of God is analogically rooted in our experience. What kind of sovereignty do we normally admire? Hitler, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Mugabe or a democratic view that does not undermine authority and freedom? Do we praise leaders who must control other people to always get their way, or do we see them as insecure, weak, and manipulative? Conversely, do we not admire leaders who influence others by the respect that their character earns more than those who control others through coercion? We admire leaders who influence and empower others, not control them like robots. The capacity for reciprocal relationships is indicative of love and power, not a compromise of sovereignty.
Rejecting a wrong view of sovereignty is not rejecting God's greatness and glory.
Prior to Augustine, the early church theologians also denied omni-controlling and implied it was a denial of biblical sovereignty. They all agreed that there was no coercion in God. They argue that control is akin to pagan fatalism. Athenagoras said that God exercises a universal and general providence of the whole. Origen (who is wrong about other things) said that God's governance is one that is consistent with the preservation of freedom of will in rational creatures (by God's sovereign choice, not an elevation of free will above God's will). Omnicausality denies that God regulates all things, undermining biblical sovereignty.
(I hit it twice)
