You really need to make up your mind. If God is the determinist of creation, then God purposed all of mankind to be injected. It was His full intention and will that this be done.
This is what I mean when I say that you blind yourself to other aspects of your theology when you discuss these things. Do you honestly forget that you believe that God is the cause of all things that happen?
Let's revisit that. In OV, God would still have been aware Adam and Eve were being tempted. He at that time could have intervened (either of our theological stances here actually). So foreknowledge doesn't push me any further into the dilemma than you. I sometimes see OV as stepping back and pushing the Calvinist into the danger. Reminds me of the two guys running from the bear. They see him coming up the valley straight for them. Both guys scramble to the top of the hill. The bear is some distance back, but one of the kids sits down catching his breath and starts pulling off his boots and putting on his sneakers.
"What are you doing?! You can't outrun a bear!"
"I know, but I can outrun you!"
Thus, Adam was not the cause of injecting the race. Neither was Satan. God was.
Now, if you're an Open View Theist, then you can say that Adam and/or Satan was the cause of mankind's sinful state, since God isn't the cause, because His will was for righteousness, and did all that He could to bring that about, but also gave Adam and Eve space for them to choose to accept or reject Him.
Foreknowledge doesn't mean determine. Ordained doesn't mean authored.
I see how you are equating them, but you are dragging in your Aminian/OV luggage for the rationale. Both positions are whole-sale buy-ins. If you only consider part, and from your own premises, it won't look right. You'll extrapolate incorrectly. It isn't that I'm not seeing your recognition of inconsistencies in my position, I'm seeing them. The problem is all the work it takes to get one with presuppositions to see through the other lenses.
I don't have the problem of God being the cause of sin.
It is the same question. The time consideration is all that is moved. Where was God during the temptation? You say He allowed (ordained) just as I do. I just say He fore-ordained, but the problem isn't the fore, it is the ordination. It isn't God's problem, it is our understanding problem (I know you are with me on that point).
But those who don't hold that belief are living in a huge logical inconsistency, which has been repeatedly exposed, here.
That is agreed. When I was Arminian I said the same thing. It took a very long time. I was skeptical, but as I compared thoughts to scripture and those Calvinist words popped up in scripture, I began to wonder if God was pushing me into an understanding of who He was. The biggest push was over Salvation. Whether I could lose it or not. I'm not talking about just saying a prayer, but scripture seemed to warn about me being separated from the vine if I wasn't careful. I had no assurance. That's originally why I began examining Calvinism as I was searching the scriptures. I began comparing and came to realize that my presuppositions needed careful analysis for me to be able to examine Calvinism properly. There were all kinds of reasons for disqualifying Calvinism I held onto for a long time. I'm still pretty light in my conforming theology, but I'm finding as I discover those foundational truthes and premises, that it requires foundational acceptance for it to fit and make sense (well enough of a testimony here).
There's a problem, here. If it is ordained before anyone else exists, who authored it?
If I watched a pretaping of the superbowl, and then we watch it together, it still doesn't mean I had anything to do with the superbowl outcome. Again, even in the OV, God sees us acting when we are acting. You are just hung up on the timing of it, but the big questions aren't affected by it.
As a Calvinist, you'd have that question to ask, since you don't know if they'd be elect or not.
As an OVT, I don't, since I fully intend to teach my kids to be followers of Christ.
Again, as a Calvinist parent, you should ask these questions, along with asking whether they're going to be elect or not.
As OVT, I don't have these concerns, since I know that God desires all to be saved, including my kids, and I have faith that God will save them.
The problem is the logical inconsistency in the modern Calvinist stance.
It was more of a sympathetic illustration. Just one to allow you to climb into a Calvinist mindset for how he'd see it.
Who authored sin, then, since it obviously was a reality before God created.
Can I reword this for help? "Who authored sin since it is obviously a reality?"
I think it is the same answer. Satan and then man perpetuating.
How many kids should you have, knowing that you're going to condemn 2/3s of them to eternal torment? (I should think zero.)
How much implication here though? If there is 'even the possibility' how responsible can any parent be in having kids? You are distancing from the dilemma with your theological stance, that I grant you. But the implications are still hanging there. Should any of us ever have children? How responsible does this make us?
But your theology doesn't reflect that.
I understand that from your POV. I was there. Same thing here. It took me a long time. I have friends who are still Arminian who don't catch that either.
But creating 2/3s of mankind just to send them to eternal torment? That's "love"?
It happens in your worldview too. "Few are those who find it." Same question, no difference. Similar answers too, it is just that it is seen more starkly in a Calvinist worldview. It doesn't disappear just because the lines may get blurred.
Are you sure you're Calvinist? have you heard of limited atonement or unconditional election or irresistible grace?
Yes. I should have qualified "we" but remember I'm a newb. I can only move a step at a time and I'm a very slow mover on theological stances.
God isn't doing anything for the unelect in Calvinism. Nothing. Zero. Nada. They're already going to hell, no chance of getting saved. They were headed to hell before God ever created.
I see this differently. "The same rain falls on the righteous and wicked..."
If He cares about a sparrow, He certainly cares about all His creation. He abhors the wicked, but I see even a life lived on this earth as grace. He has to sustain their breath after-all.
AMR and Nang could help me out here, but I don't see this disagreeing with a Calvinist perspective.
And even for the elect: God "ordains" us to sin and condemnation, and then God comes and dies to "save" us from what He inflicted upon us in the first place. That doesn't sound like "love".
How has your theology escaped the same logical conclusion? If God saw Adam and Eve sinning and didn't stop it, what happened? Again, I think our answers are similar and once again, you are just seeing it starkly in Calvinism. It is simply clouded (obfuscated) in an Arminian/OV conception. It doesn't matter 'when' He knew as long as it isn't regated to the past. Present and future offer up virtually the same problems.
Again, you have yet to explain who "authored" what God "ordained" before He "ordained" it.
Same question.
KEY WORD: HELPED. You didn't DETERMINE my decision. I did. Again, more word games.
Again, more word games. Influence isn't determinism. Determinism says that everything has been determined beforehand. There is no influence in determinism. You're trying to redefine "determinism.' that's word games.
No, again, I've explained how I see it. I'll try to remember your definitions as we discuss these in the future. We have different nuanced understandings of those words.
I'm just dropping the last half here to try to keep my promise in shortening these. I've also cut a bit from the top half as well.
In Him
Lon
) I do agree that the whole dispensational position is dead weight to the Gospel (IMHO). Still, I think you'll find as much unity and 'spiritual maturity' among Open Theists as you find among Calvinists ... some where between three and five points to be sure ... and how long have you guys been working on your Tulip? 
