Again, that was 25 years ago. You and I are alike on the sentiment but... Emotions are life's indicators, like dashboard lights on your car. They are fine and work, if faulty at times but you have to get into the engine to know what's going on. God included feelings in our package so I'd not want to eschew them, but recognize what purposes they serve.
You are talented at taking what is said and interpreting it in some ridiculously extreme way. I wasn't within a thousand miles of suggesting that we should attempt to be some version of Mr. Spock. There is a time and a place for emotion. Formulating one's doctrine is not one of them.
See if I can convince you a bit: 1) We are created (like a program/robot).
Premise 1 is false right off the bat.
On what possible basis, via what convoluted path, could your mind come to the conclusion that being created by God is analogous to our having created a lifeless computer?
2) What is inside of us is placed there (like a robot).
Premise two is too undefined to even be meaningful and, in addition to that, it makes the same illogical leap to some sort of lifeless computer as premise one.
3) I've been given directions that make me work, my heart, my mind, my digestive system.
Premise three is also false. There's more than one direction I could go here. First of all, your physical body works because it is alive, not because it is some sort of biological computer program. The proof of this is that there isn't ANYTHING physically different about a person who has just died. All the same muscle, bone, blood and brain tissue, all the same DNA, all the same everything is still there, except that a moment ago he was alive and now he's dead.
More important than any point about biology though is the fact that your mind is not physical and so that major part of premise three would be false regardless of any biological consideration.
4) In every sense, who I am was indeed programmed by God.
Completely false nonsense!
King Saul was hand picked by God to be king over Israel and God Himself said that he and his descendants could have reigned over Israel forever had he not rebelled against God and disobeyed. Solomon is another that started off so well and ended up disastrously because he rebelled against the God who had blessed him and raised him up as king and given him wisdom beyond measure. Adam and Eve were both directly created by God's own hand and were both "very good" and they absolutely could have told the serpent to pound sand and ran to God for rescue from his temptations but instead chose of their own accord to rebel
against God's will,
against God's design.
Let loose? How much? It is the Freewill discussion, but the Fall is culprit for much of our autonomy, we were supposed to stay 'plugged-in' as it were, to God and not have this much independence or free, unattached thought.
Is there even one single aspect of your doctrine that isn't just made up out of thin air?
We are NOT more free now than were Adam and Eve in the Garden. On the contrary, we are captives! Who taught you this silliness?
5) Scripture calls for us to replug and to have His thoughts and be wholly as He is.
Which we cannot do! You understand that, right? You cannot live the Christian life. Christ has to live His life through you.
There is an excellent article on this exact subject written by the late Pastor Bob Hill. It exists on this website somewhere, or it used to, but every link I can find to it is broken, which happens at an alarming rate, by the way. Hopefully someone reading this can find it and post a link to the article.
God created us, we have a lot in common as such, with other creations such as robots.
We have almost nothing at all in common with robots.
To me? It 'seems' you may have had an emotional reaction?
Sound reason produces valid emotions. The reverse produces foolishness.
Likely not a robot then, or are we?
Stupid would be to extrapolate I or you is nothing but a robot, not my intent.
I genuinely can't figure out what your intent is!
Again, this convoluted mess seems only to be a way for you to make an attempt to salvage doctrines about God that the plain reading of scripture flatly contradicts and that no one in Christianity believed or taught until Augustine imported them into the Catholic church from Aristotle. Just drop the pagan doctrines and all this weirdness becomes unnecessary.
Poor phrasing likely: If I'm told God is NOT omnipotent and I've believe and taken comfort, from scriptures no-less mind you, there has to be a reaction and most often it is not going to be good. It challenges quite a lot and even if you did not (one reason of asking in the thread how one came to Open Theism) have the reaction, most will. Most of this is not so much a conversation for today as reflection I thought Openists should know. I believe these are the walls.
I wasn't poor phrasing at all. I entirely understand the point you're making here and I do not disagree with it. One error leads to other errors. Once a paradigm has been adopted suddenly you seem to think everything "fits". It see it when you read the bible, you see it when you pray, you see it everywhere you look because you've put on the glasses through which you view the world.
Same is true of ANY PARADIGM! Including Open Theism.
The question then because which paradigm is superior and why? How does one go about comparing one paradigm to another and making objective decisions about which is superior to the other?
Has it ever occurred to you to ask those questions? Almost no one ever does it. The VAST majority simply believe what they are taught to believe. Some have a desire to explore doctrinal issues but the VAST majority of them simply accept as true whichever doctrines they prefer to accept, whichever feels right to them for whatever reason (some reasons being more rational than others, of course).
At the risk of sounding like I'm tooting my own horn here, I am not in the vast majority! I have spent very nearly my entire life in an honest struggle to find the real truth. I started as a teenager being literally blown about by every wind of doctrine and that is no exaggeration! The weak understanding of the bible that my Sunday school teachers had along with what I understand now to be near insanity that was being broadcast on television networks such and TBN and me spinning around like a dust devil, doctrinally speaking. Just about the only Christian doctrine I've always known was certainly false was Catholicism. But, like I said, my struggle was an honest one, which means I didn't stop listening just because the "Praise the Lord" program had ended. I read books, I read and listened to sermons. I read everything from Charles Spurgeon to Charles Stanley. I studied every flavor of philosophy you can name, from books about Plato all the way up to and including such stupidity as books about the philosophy of Star Wars and The Matrix.
I'm here to tell you that there are three sources of
objective doctrinal truth - and no, I do not believe it is a coincidence that the number is three...
1. The Logos (Reason - John 1)
2. The logos (the bible - Matt. 13:19 & Hebrews 4:12).
3. The creation (that which was created by Logos - John1:1 & Romans 1:19-20).
Open Theism is the only systematic theology that I've ever encountered that even has these three things in mind, never mind in focus as a primary source and goal for the system itself. Indeed, most systems seek to openly embrase irrationality by asigning euphamisms such as "mystery" and "antinomy" to what anyone else can see is abject absurdities. Catholics don't even care to go that far. They just believe whatever the Hell someone with a red robe on tells them to believe. Both Calvinists and Arminians pick and choose a set of prefered doctrines to believe in and are willing to bend their minds into whatever pretzel knot is necessary to preserve those doctrines intact, up to and including the belief that God is arbitrary, which Hilston openly stated on many occasions, by the way.
In fact, to my knowledge, Open Theism is the only systematic theology who's adherents are willing to reject doctrines solely on the basis of sound reason, with scripture, plainly read, as their primary premise.
So I challenge you to show me a better way! Show me a superior meathod of evaluated my paradigm against yours. I used to hold yours! Or something very similar to it! I was the guy who believed in practically every popular doctrine in Christiandom that you can name. I know what it is to see the world through the glasses that most of the rest of Christianity is wearing and so i can speak from experience about which is superior and noble and which is weak and beggardly.
Agree but "Al (omni) - mighty (potent) is a scriptural given.
Every premise in your brain is false. It's a wonder that you can speak coherent English!
Your direct implication here is that "amighty" and "omnipotent" are synonyms and that is simply false.
Omnipotent, as all the omni-doctrines are, is an over statement. God is the fountain head of all power. All power either resides with Him or was delegated by Him. That power which was delegated can be recalled by God at His sole discression. Thus, He is indeed, all powerful and He is the invincible almighty God.
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE DOCTRINE OF OMNIPOTENCE TEACHES!!!!!!
The classical doctrine of omnipotence is deeply intertwined with the doctrines of divine sovereignty and immutability, particularly in Augustinian theological systems (Catholicism and Calvinism in particular but also Arminianism but in a less consistent way). In these systems omnipotence is a cornerstone of God's sovereignty. Because God is all-powerful, He exercises complete control over all creation, ensuring that His will is always accomplished. In this view, God's omnipotence is not an abstract power but an active, sovereign authority over every detail of history and creation.
Likewise, according to these systems, omnipotence is inseparable from God's immutability. God's power does not waver, grow, or diminish over time. This means His purposes are unalterable, and His ability to fulfill them is never compromised. His omnipotence works in harmony with His eternal and unchanging nature, ensuring consistency in His actions. For both Augustine and Calvin, omnipotence is not just raw power but power aligned with God's wisdom, holiness, and eternal decree. Since God is immutable, His omnipotence is always directed toward fulfilling His sovereign and unchanging will. Thus, in classical theology, omnipotence is not understood in isolation but as a dynamic aspect of God's sovereign and immutable nature, ensuring that His will is not only ultimate but also perfectly reliable and consistent. None of which is consistent with the plain reading of scripture where God is constantly not getting the opposite of what He actually wants.
So, as I said, in short, the classical doctrine of omnipotence is an overstatement.
Ezekiel is wrought with omni imagery without me reading into it. That you DON'T get those same ideas? Yes, I understand.
Contradict yourself much?
Any of us who have been saved and transformed, understand this and thus this thread is a peripheral, but our respective positions do drive some of our relationship with Him, certainly with one another over the axioms
If only that were true! Calvinists openly worship an omnipotent tyrant. They praise their god for his arbitraryness.
It is a talking point, perhaps serviceable with its limitation.