To which I must agree.
That is only if you assume the modified Molinist position, which only Boyd holds to (none of the other major OV proponents do, and David Basinger even attacks Molinism). Should we go down the Molinist road, or stick to general OV?Ah! but you err here sir. In the open view, it is not that God does not know which choices will mess up his plans but rather he does not know which choices will be made. In a picture that Boyd calls neo molinism, God knows all of the possible choices. He knows that there are many truly possible choices open at certain given moments and there is no fact of the matter about which choice will be made. that does not mean that there is no fact of the matter of the consequences of those choices.
Of course, even we are surprised at horrendous sin, and I would guess that mankind is much more cynical than God. Hmm, can God be cynical? Nevermind.I never see God being surprised in the consequences of choices (unless those consequences are choices themselves). But it is the choices themselves that he is surprised or disappointed in. As an aside, interestingly, though of course I believe in a sin nature, and though we emphasize so strongly how natural it is for man to sin, ironically, it seems that God is never surprised when people respond in the right way towards him. He is surprised though occasionally at horrendous sin.
This seems to contradict most OVers, in that they affirm that God can actually be wrong. The verse you mention is one of the instances when God was wrong, according to (at least) Sanders. Can God be wrong (e.g. hold a false belief) or not?Now we openness folks believe that God believed that Israel would return to him but he still new that it was possible that they wouldn’t. He expected them to return but he knew the consequences if they shouldn’t. So in the open view, God not only knows all the possibilities, he has hopes for certain possibilities. So his knowledge is never wrong and in that sense God is never wrong. But his hopes for some issues may not come to pass. But that does not mean that he did not have a plan for such an event. God banished Israel to Babylon and Israel benefited from that spiritually. But I’m sure he was hoping that he would not have to do so.
Not ready to handle the "corporate election" stuff yet, give me some time to read and think (I have never really thought about this before). I am uncertain as to where I stand.
Here is a real humdinger of a question: If all things work together for the good of those who love Him and have been called according to His purpose, then how can anyone lose salvation? Up until they lose salvation, God has to be working in their best interests.
Or are you saying that Romans 8:28 is a promise only for those who perservere?
But how do you love Him now, and not in a few minutes, and yet still have that be the best thing for you?
That is only if you assume the modified Molinist position, which only Boyd holds to (none of the other major OV proponents do, and David Basinger even attacks Molinism).
The problem is, however, that even the most competent person can get backed into a wall from time to time as bad things continually mount up. The question is, what does God do then?
Of course, even we are surprised at horrendous sin, and I would guess that mankind is much more cynical than God. Hmm, can God be cynical? Nevermind.
This seems to contradict most OVers, in that they affirm that God can actually be wrong. The verse you mention is one of the instances when God was wrong, according to (at least) Sanders.
Hmm, note the from the present. I would argue that Arminianism in general would argue that the future is open with respect to the present, we just think that God already knows what future free actions we will take, but we do not place God into our time by necessity.that is not the case in boyd's modification as the future remains open from the present because of Libertarian freedom.
Exactly. What did you think I thought "it" meant?In both of those verses, the "it" referred to is God's command.
I would argue that Arminianism in general would argue that the future is open with respect to the present, we just think that God already knows what future free actions we will take
I think my biggest problem with the OV is that it unnecessarily limits God. I need to think about that some more.
In all sincerity as 1013 stated no matter how God created He would be limited. The purpose of the OV is to understand through Biblical evidence why God has created thus and limiting Himself the way He has. We would agree that God can not lie therefore He is limited in that respect but we search Scripture to better understand why He can not. God is not imperfect by this inabliy or limitation just as the OV contends that God is not any less perfect in His inability to exhaustively foreknow the future. When we understand the purpose to why He would limit Himself in this manner, understand why the limitation exists. It is not one of weakness or impotence or even ignorance. Just as 1013 saidI think my biggest problem with the OV is that it unnecessarily limits God. I need to think about that some more.
It is the utmost of importance to realize the OV states this limitation upon God's foreknowledge rests on man's liberty and freely reciprocating love. It matters more to God to recieve genuine love than to have complete control. Maybe this offers some insight. Peace.If He created a world in which all creatures did precisely as he dictated, His soverignty would not be limited as it is in arminianism, but he could not have creatures choose him of their own volition without him giving up that soverignty.
Are you arguing that in Romans 8:28, "all things" refers only to suffering?!?
Please show how one can, from the context, arrive at such a conclusion. I really do not think it is warranted.
Unwarranted assumption. You are assuming that God's reality is the only reality. I do not think that is a valid understanding. Our reality is not God's, since we could never understand His reality. Therefore, ours is just as real, though more limited. you must therefore show either that our reality should be the same as God's or that our reality includes His knowledge of the future. If you cannot cover either of those, your point is moot.Not in a metaphysical sense for all who grasp reality as it truly is.
However, I think the OV unnecessarily limits God in that it takes away His foreknowledge.
No other (orthodox) system tries to trncate God in such a way
Again, your reasons for doing so stem from the belief that EDF and libertarian free-will are incompatible, which is not true.
Could you shed some more light for me about this?I just realized recently that not only does your view of time make the future open, it also suggests an open past, and that for me is a bit too radical.
My problem is the contradiction it leads to in 8:32, for if "all things" is limited to suffering, then God will graciously give us suffering, which seems nonsensical in context.
Could you shed some more light for me about this?Jaltus doesn't like the traditional view of timelessness nor the view of God as a presentist being.
I could be slightly misrepresenting him here but God is said to be dynamic but outside of the whole of time all of which exists. Not only can God change the future of this time line but he can also change the past, or so I think Jaltus has told me.
but if God can change the past, then the past is open, not that we can percieve that.