Is Open Theism a Type of Arminianism?

[Iconoclast]

I'll tell you what - go around making a bunch of arguments for supporting the gay lifestyle and add in some statements like this:

HT:
In fact, if I ever become a gay, nothing will change in the way I pray or worship or witness or try to glorify God in all that I do.

I dare you. :laugh: Then publically deny it if you will - See where it gets you. :laugh: Think in unfair if you like.

:thumbs:very logical....point and match:wavey:

 

[Benjamin]

:thumbs:very logical....point and match

Well Icon, it’s logical in that that confirms why I would be suspicious but is purely rhetorical on whether or not Olson is actually an OT believer (which I didn’t say he is, but only that I see him leaning him that way in which I gave reason to the request that I explain why “my opinion” would be such…i.e. that I see him acting as if a “closet wannabe”)…hope you know that.

I have proved nothing logically but why I would be suspicious, so if you’re looking for proof-positive, a valid logical conclusion that Olson actually is an OT…sorry, you'd be mistaken on that point that such was logically true. In fairness, HT is actually on to something that I probably shouldn’t be in effect calling him on it if in fact he does publically proclaim to have no affiliation whatsoever with the belief; and I don’t know how he deals with Divine foreknowledge VS the Calvinist’ conclusion on this issue commonly being supposed the bases for Determinism regardless of the clearly logical consequences on other Divine attributes, or if he even argues the point logically.

Further, if Olson came here and told me I was absolutely wrong, I’d have to admit I don’t know his heart and would have to back down and apologize for my comment. To be honest Olson could simply rely on scripture and simplistic reasoning to prove the truth of creaturely volition and to discount Determinism while calling Divine foreknowledge a mystery to support his soteriological view and I’d be fine with taking his word that he does not believe in OT even without him attempting to logically support it.

To be frank, I simply couldn’t resist going after the credibility of HT’s source on the issue of OT being a legitimate type or explanation to support Arminianism after being challenged to do so. If I can get a “rhetorical horse laugh” in on HT while I’m giving him my reason to doubt Olson’s credibility all the more fun for me. :tongue3: That said,…I would maintain that I do strongly disagree with Olson’s attempt to justify and defend the OT belief which I believe foregoes a Divine attribute while trying to include such as an valid Arminian belief just as much as I disagree with Determinists which forego several Divine attributes. :thumbs:

 

[humblethinker]

I'll tell you what - go around making a bunch of arguments for supporting the gay lifestyle and add in some statements like this:

HT:
In fact, if I ever become a gay, nothing will change in the way I pray or worship or witness or try to glorify God in all that I do.

So... would you liken someone becoming gay to someone moving to a theological belief that is other than your own? Or, are you saying that being gay is a decision that one may come to after honestly weighing the various kinds of sexuality? The comparison you used is more confusing than clarifying. Would you think it would make the same impact to substitute 'pedophile' in place of 'gay'? This time it's not about whether this comparison is fair but whether it's helpful in conveying the meaning you intend. You're better than this.

 

[AresMan]

I cite IMO.....Aresman, who is
a.) Brilliant
b.) Highly Educated
c.) Someone I personally think the World of....(Theologically Speaking)

Aww, thanks HoS. :flower:

d.) Doesn't Actually quite understand "Middle knowledge" or "Molinism" IMO

It is true that Molinism is not something I have encountered very often; therefore, I am likely to understand it least. My impression of it comes from how I have observed William Lane Craig and other Molinist apologists explain it and argue it in debates.

I am open to learning, for sure. It is just that when I see apologists argue things like "Wouldn't it be attractive if <Molinist proposition> were true?" that I raise a red flag. The fact that a Jesuit came up with the original version to try to "pretty please" keep those Reformers from getting converts away from the Catholic church doesn't make it settle well with me. The fact that many Protestants are now embracing a system that even Catholics and Jesuits have largely thrown by the wayside is problematic to me. When "Calvinists" expose inconsistencies in mainstream evangelical "Arminian" thinking, such people seem to run to anything that provides a solution to their problem. It has to be something--anything--but "Calvinism." It somehow has to be MY "free will" in the grand scheme of things that contributes to the warp and woof of reality. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Benjamin]

You're better than this.

You're better than attempting to ignore that I made a valid argument to support my suspicion, this, after ignoring my whole post and trying to create a rabbit trail on this stupid issue.

 

[humblethinker]

You're better than attempting to ignore that I made a valid argument to support my suspicion, this, after ignoring my whole post and trying to create a rabbit trail on this stupid issue.

I am really at a loss here... is the following your valid argument or is it something else?:

I'll tell you what - go around making a bunch of arguments for supporting the gay lifestyle and add in some statements like this:

HT:
In fact, if I ever become a gay, nothing will change in the way I pray or worship or witness or try to glorify God in all that I do.

I dare you. :laugh: Then publically deny it if you will - See where it gets you. :laugh: Think in unfair if you like.

If so, I would reassert my previous questions in response and hope that you will address them directly. If this is not what you are talking about then I missed it and kindly pointing me back to it will get us back on track. thanks.

 

[Iconoclast]

Here is a quote from one of Olsons articles;

Philosopher Brümmer also demonstrates, rightly, I think, that strict Calvinism (he uses the Canons of Dort as his foil) is ultimately incoherent insofar as it claims that God is so different, so unique, that somehow it’s good and right for God to control humans in such a manner that would never be considered right or good in human experience. If God is so “wholly other,” such that there are no analogies, then, he says, we really do not know anything about God. This is what I’ve been saying here for a long time—almost since the blog’s beginning. Ultimately, strict Calvinism, divine determinism, must posit a “hidden God,” a voluntarist God who has no nature or whose nature is so radically different from ours that we can’t even conceive of it. And, in light of hell, such a controlling, manipulative God cannot be conceived as “good” in any meaningful way.

And years ago we were warned of this very kind of thing here:

Sermon
By Rev. Thomas Chalmers, D.D. & LL.D.

From Congregational Sermons: Vol. II, Sermon VIII.

"And now I exhort you to be of good cheer: for there shall be no loss of any man's life among you, but of the ship. - Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved." - Acts xxvii. 22, 31. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE comparison of these two verses lands us in what may appear to many to be a very dark and unprofitable speculation. Now, our object in setting up this comparison, is not to foster in any of you a tendency to meddle with matters too high for us - but to protect you against the practical mischief of such a tendency. You have all heard of the doctrine of predestination. It has long been a settled article of our church. And there must be a sad deal of evasion and of unfair handling with particular passages, to get free of the evidence which we find for it in the Bible.
And independently of Scripture altogether, the denial of this doctrine brings a number of monstrous conceptions along with it. It supposes God to make a world, and not to reserve in His own hand the management of its concerns. Though it should concede to him an absolute sovereignty over all matter, it deposes Him from His sovereignty over the region of created minds, that far more dignified and interesting portion of His works. The greatest events in the history of the universe, are those which are brought about by the agency of willing and intelligent beings - and the enemies of the doctrine invest every one of these beings with some sovereign and independent principle of freedom, in virtue of which it may be asserted of this whole class of events, that they happened, not because they were ordained of God, but because the creatures of God, by their own uncontrolled power, brought them into existence. At this rate, even He to whom we give the attribute of omniscience, is not able to say at this moment, what shall be the fortune or the fate of any individual - and the whole train of future history is left to the wildness of accident.

All this, carries along with it so complete a dethronement of God - it is bringing His creation under the dominion of so many nameless and undeterminable contingencies - it is taking the world and the current of its history so entirely out of the hands of Him who formed it - it is withal so opposite to what obtains in every other field of observation, where, instead of the lawlessness of chance, we shall find that the more we attend, the more we perceive of a certain necessary and established order - that from these and other considerations which might be stated, the doctrine in question, in addition to the testimonies which we find for it in the Bible, is at this moment receiving a very general support from the speculations of infidel as well as Christian philosophers. Assenting, as we do, to this doctrine, we state it as our conviction, that God could point the finger of His omniscience to every one individual amongst us, and tell what shall be the fate of each, and the place of each, and the state of suffering or enjoyment of each, at any one period of futurity however distant. Well does He know those of us who are vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, and those of us whom He has predestinated to be conformed to the image of His dear Son, and to be rendered meet for the inheritance.

The predestination of God respecting the final escape of Paul and his fellow-travellers from shipwreck, though made known to the Apostle, did not betray him into the indolence which is ascribed, and falsely ascribed, to the belief of this doctrine; nor did it restrain Him from spiriting on the people to the most strenuous and fatiguing exertions.

And shall we, who only know in general that God does predestinate, but cannot carry it home with assurance to a single individual, convert this doctrine into a plea for indolence and security? Even should we see the mark of God upon their foreheads, it would be our duty to urge on them the necessity of doings those things, which, if left undone, will exclude from the kingdom of God. But, we make no such pretensions. We see no mark upon any of your foreheads. We possess no more than the Bible, and access through the Mediator to Him, who, by His Spirit, can open our understandings to understand it. The revealed things which we find there belong to us, and we press them upon you - " Unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." "If ye believe not in the Son of God, the wrath of God abideth in you." "Be not deceived, neither covetous, nor thieves, nor extortioners, nor drunkards, shall inherit the kingdom of God." "He who forsaketh not all, shall not be a disciple of Christ." "The fearful, and the unbelieving, and the abominable, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." These are plain declarations, and apart from the doctrine of predestination altogether,

 

[Iconoclast]

And Paul says in the other of these verses, that unless the centurion and soldiers were to do so and so they should not be saved. In one of the verses, it is made to be the certain and unfailing appointment of God. In the other it is made to depend on the centurion. There is no difficulty in all this, if you would just consider, that God, who made the end certain, made the means certain also. It is true, that the end was certainly to happen, and it is as true that the end would not have happened without the means - but God secured the happening of both, and so gave sureness and consistency to the passage before us. Now, it is worth while to attend here both to the conduct of Paul who gave the directions, and to the conduct of the centurion who obeyed them. Paul, who gave the directions, knew, in virtue of the revelation that was made to him some time before, that the men were certainly to be saved; and yet this does not prevent him from urging them to the practical adoption of means for saving themselves.

 

[thomas15]

A "closet wannabe" would probably be putting it more accurately.

A few years ago I wanted to get some information on Arminian theology and another poster here recommended Olson's book Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.

I read the book and kept it for future review but the lasting impression I have is from the introduction where Olson relates how as a kid some of his peers told him they (his church) were not saved because their church held to Arminian theology. This is the same tactic that Kim Riddlebarger uses to begin to defend his theology. I personally don't relate well to that method because in the USA, we have unlimited access to the Bible, which is the source of theological truth.

Anyway, I remember thinking while reading the book that Olson is a little weak with respect to the Scriptures. I suspect but will not claim that Olson is on on the left of the evangelical spectrum.

 

[Van]

What is Open Theism?

Open Theism is the opposite of Closed Theism. In open theism, the future is not totally fixed, but is partially open to alteration. We can make autonomous choices, such as trusting in Christ, and that decision can lead to God crediting our faith as righteousness, and placing us spiritually in Christ. Thus we were not saved or damned from all eternity, but rather the opportunity for being reconciled to God is actually before all who hear and understand the call of the gospel of Christ. God has not preordained who will hear and who will understand the gospel. The opposite view, espoused by Calvinists, and other exhaustive determinists, is closed theism.

In open theism, God’s omniscience is either not exhaustive, because to foreknow is to predestine that one outcome, or God’s omniscience somehow allows us to make at least some autonomous choices such that the future is not totally fixed. This second view of omniscience (foreknown but not predestined) is Arminian, and little effort is made to justify it with logic, rather it is set before us on the basis of accepting a mystery because God’s ways are above our own.

Open Theism embraces the doctrine that God makes conditional covenants, if we do this, then God will do that, but if we do not repent, then God will not relent. God altering his action to keep His word and purpose is sometimes referred to as God changing His mind, although He is simply and consistently responding according to His plan to our thoughts and actions.

God’s emotional response to our actions does not suggest a lack of foreknowledge. For example, my parents have passed away, but when I think of them, I experience emotions of loss, grief, and sadness. In a similar way, just because God is grieved over our sinfulness, does not suggest he did not anticipate it.

Open theism does not seek to make God more like humans, but rather true to His word.

What are the common arguments against Open Theism?

First the Bible says God is “all knowing” and “all” means everything imaginable. Thus, the first argument rips verses out of context, which say God knows all things hidden in our hearts, i.e. our thoughts, and motives, and claims everything imaginable is in view.
Read John 3:20 and 21:17 and judge for yourself. But even if you accept this mistaken view, God knows everything imaginable, you are still in the Open Theism camp if you also hold that to foreknow everything does not predestine the future.

Second the Bible says God’s knowledge is way beyond us. The closed theists again extrapolate this truth, and claim the verse says God’s knowledge is infinite, i.e. without limit. But the word simply means more than we can count or comprehend, hence unfathomable or innumerable rather than infinite is the actual message of scripture.

Next, after considering that there is no actual support in scripture for the type of total omniscience that fixes the future, next consider that the Closed Theists misrepresent open theism by attributing to open theism several unbiblical positions.

Does God really make mistakes, or is God perfect, without flaw? The Biblical view is God is perfect and without flaw, therefore it demeans God to claim God makes mistakes. Here is how Open Theism is misrepresented by some opponents: Since God does not know the future exhaustively, then it is possible for Him to allow the future to develop in unanticipated ungodly ways, and thus God made a mistake in allowing that future circumstance to develop. But the opposite argument can also be made, God allows the future to come into being, and therefore while it may be inconsistent with His desire for our lives, it is consistent with His purpose and plan for no plan of God can be thwarted.

Does God not predestine circumstances and events that shape the lives of people? Of course He does, and nothing in open theism says God does not predestine outcomes in the lives of people. It says God does not predestine all outcomes. Often, you will find an argument attempting to refute open theism that proves God predestined this or that, which is not at issue. Exhaustive predestination is at issue, i.e. closed theism.

In summary, several of the advocates for open theism have made arguments extrapolating open theism beyond biblical truth, but if we stick to the basic idea, the future is not totally fixed and the opportunity for salvation exists through faith, our autonomous choice to trust fully in Christ, then this limited Open Theism becomes the orthodox view and bed-rock Arminianism.

 

[Iconoclast]

Van.....
Post 30 .....do you really want to suggest this is even worthy of considering???
Are you actually saying this is where you stand?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I ask that you do more than stand by it... anyone can do that. Make the case for it. You have not done so yet.

You are now asking me to essentially prove a negative.....The answer is no, I won't try it. Olson is wrong, and anyone who has sufficient knowledge of Molinism and has read Olson bloviate sufficiently about it already knows this. Denying this, isn't helpful either.

Unfortunately, it now seems Olson can't distinguish between Open Theism and Arminianism either. They do not belong in the same camp, and never have.

 

[Benjamin]

I am really at a loss here... is the following your valid argument or is it something else?:If so, I would reassert my previous questions in response and hope that you will address them directly. If this is not what you are talking about then I missed it and kindly pointing me back to it will get us back on track. thanks.

Well, let me spell it out for you…

To begin with I submitted an argument with multiple points why I don’t think OT should be thought of as typical Arminian theology:

I think they (OT) should consider their theology separate from Arminianism as far as the aspect that there is no relationship between the OT of view of God being limited in knowledge and Arminianism in the eyes of most Arminians. The OT people might agree with the soteriological view of Arminianism but OT come to their conclusions of how God allows for free will much differently as Arminians generally do not sacrifice the Divine attributes of God’s foreknowledge to get there (maintain creaturely volition). Calvinists/Determinists often like to say that (or accuse) in a strawman argument that Arminians arriving to true creaturely volition is through OT but they don’t give up on divine attributes to get there, period.

Now in the article here we a theologian who is OT basically agreeing with the Determinists that the sacrifice of Divine foreknowledge is needed to arrive to a true view of free will. Thanks Olson, but NO THANKS! You may be in headed in the same direction as Arminians but you are definitely using a different boat to get there!

As the article recognizes, OT give Calvinists critics reason (although disingenuous reason) to lump all Arminians together on that OT can only be the logical end-point to Arminianism. Frankly, my OT friends, you are bad for the reputation of a correct soteriological view that does not need your “cop-out” on Divine attributes to support it. And…Yeah Riiigghtt! Of course “he doesn’t want to get into MK”…he’d rather take the “easy” way! (BTW, after saying such he goes right ahead and does make a feeble attempt to argue MK = OT logically) …he wants the cake and to eat it too.

Nope! And no thanks! I give credit to Calvinist who attempt to stick to Compatibilism to avoid fatalism and heresies which I do not give to Hard Determinists and I hold the same standard on Open Theists. If OT wants to forego Divine attributes they are more in the boats with the Hard Determinists which are making a hard left in the wrong direction rather than on the path Arminianism heads which is out to maintain ALL Divine attributes.

On that note, I would say Calvinist’ Compatibilism and Arminian’ Middle Knowledge views are more amicable together than that of Arminianism and Open Theism.

Olson is right on one thing, I don’t care to have the OT view trying to be sleeping in my tent, we may camp together in some aspects but at the end of the night the OT people have eaten far too many beans.

You focused on one rather insignificant issue pertaining to that argument which was being concerned about my thinking of Olson as one who sides with OT. That's it!


I presume you are a better thinker than that, pup; if you want to wrestle with the big dogs let’s go after the big bones. I get tired of these smokescreen tactics being used on this board that would try change the focus of the argument to an attack on the man, in this case that I was “unfair”

What’s the big bone, you ask? The fact that OT discards a major Divine attribute (Foreknowledge) and that Olson’s opinion of it goes beyond being only sympathetic to it but is trying to label such a belief as typical Arminian thought!

Again, the issue is not that “I” am a villain for pointing out Olson’s obvious sympathies OR that now I have used an analogy to demonstrate how it would be reasonable to be suspicious in answer to your continued focus on attacking me for being “unfair”.

Not surprisingly you asked, with another one-liner if the analogy I gave was logical, after I explained what it did logically prove and while avoiding my post before that explaining how I would come to that suspicion by also answering it a one-liner while avoiding everything else I previously said:

First clue, he demonstrates a lot of sympathizing and defense for the OT position, as seen in both the blog entries. He has even taken sides against MK in favor for OT, further demonstrating he does not recognize the validity of MK. I don't think he is left with much defense if he can't deal with the Divine foreknowedge issue logically. So...

In agreement with what HOS said:

"I think there are too many who focus on the "Character" argument....who defend it at ALL costs...and they will default to Open Theism in order to avoid Calvinism.”

I think then he may very well be stuck between a rock and a hard to defend his view and ability uphold the Divine attributes against the conclusions of Calvinism in debate and that is the reason for the sympathizing, wanting to include OT as typical Arminians, and ambitious defense of OT, etc. He resorts to OT.

There are also hints of his "closet OT wannabeism" in his words, such as:
Quote:
Olson:
In fact, if I ever become an open theist, nothing will change in the way I pray or worship or witness or try to glorify God in all that I do.

HT:
So, he publicly denies being an Open Theist and yet you doubt his motives and publicly accuse him of such? That is rather suspicious and unfair.

Come to think of it, I don’t know why I’m wasting my time spelling this out for you because I will probably get more of the same from you.

:tonofbricks:

BTW, I even showed you some grace on this issue of you focusing on me being unfair when speaking to Icon, who was probably trying to twist the knife on you while seeing that I have supported with reason my suspicion, by saying you were on to something, but that certainly wasn’t for the purpose of providing you justification to pursue an attack on me for my opinion being Olson is a strong sympathizer and supporter of the OT doctrines and to continue smokescreening the main issues of objection to his Olson’s premise!

I clearly supported why my opinion and suspicion would be valid and did so logically.

You are a better thinker than to continue to solely chase "this" issue (attack me as being “unfair”) in disregard of the premise being whether OT is or should be accepted as a “typical Arminian belief”. Get it?!?

Again, all I have from you is you repeating an attack on me with a one-liner and saying I have been “unfair”…well, boohoo! THIS IS NOT MEAT OF THE ARGUMENT! Get it? It is a continued smokescreen on the major issues at hand!
BTW: Seems you have a habit of avoiding the bottom line to why I, and many others would object to OT outright as seen here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1858933&postcount=48

Where I demonstrated you start sounding more in line with Molinist’ thought than an Open Theist when pinned to the mat on the issue of whether or not OT discount Divine Foreknowledge and where I took the time to answer many of your questions after demonstrating those who hold to OT do in fact forego the attribute of Divine foreknowledge and you bolted on that argument (crickets is all I got for my time) and this one you smokescreen on, pup.

The issue boils down to is if OT is an ethical and typical way to deal with the “mystery” of Divine Foreknowledge and should be accepted by those of Arminian thought and the answer is NO! It simply falls back on discounting that Divine attribute, and that sir, should not only be a serious red flag for you but is a doctrine I have not seen be allowed to be proselytized on this board before and to which all I’ve seen you do to defend it is to begin rabbit holing on insignificant issues or by dodging the issues completely when they begin to add up against that doctrine. ???

The gay analogy (which you want to focus on now) clearly demonstrated that I was not being unreasonable to have my suspicions if you answer the question honestly. Going back to use that analogy again I would not consider a gay marriage a typical marriage in the same way I would not consider OT typical Arminianism.

 

[Iconoclast]

Benjamin,

BTW, I even showed you some grace on this issue of you focusing on me being unfair when speaking to Icon, who was probably trying to twist the knife on you while seeing that I have supported with reason my suspicion, by saying you were on to something, but that certainly wasn’t for the purpose of providing you justification to pursue an attack on me for my opinion being Olson is a strong sympathizer and supporter of the OT doctrines and to continue smokescreening the main issues of objection to his Olson’s premise!

I clearly supported why my opinion and suspicion would be valid and did so logically.

You are correct more or less.....OT.....is a horrible idea and false teaching altogether that is to be resisted everytime it appears in public discussion.

Arminianism while being a serious error, at least makes , or attempts to make a biblical case while not dispensing with God or His attributes. many in arminianism will study themselves into the more biblical position....while the Ot will drift off into apostasy because they will drift past the safety of God's word.....into ungodly speculations.

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin,



You are correct more or less.....OT.....is a horrible idea and false teaching altogether that is to be resisted everytime it appears in public discussion.

Yes, I consider OT almost as serious an error as Hyper-Determinism which atrributes evil, among other things, unto the nature of God to support their doctrines of pre-detestination.:thumbs:

 

[humblethinker]

I presume you are a better thinker than that, pup; if you want to wrestle with the big dogs let’s go after the big bones. I get tired of these smokescreen tactics being used on this board that would try change the focus of the argument to an attack on the man, in this case that I was “unfair”

"pup"

This is condescending... It is akin to 'boy' or 'son'. You call me 'pup' but then claim that I am the one changing the focus of the argument to an attack on the man? Astounding... What are you so close to loosing that you would use such a strategy? If anything this gives credibility to the earlier claim that you were being unfair to Roger Olson. Far from being of grace, these are bully tactics and should not be employed. I want to believe you are better than that.

 

[humblethinker]

You are now asking me to essentially prove a negative.....The answer is no, I won't try it. Olson is wrong, and anyone who has sufficient knowledge of Molinism and has read Olson bloviate sufficiently about it already knows this. Denying this, isn't helpful either.

Unfortunately, it now seems Olson can't distinguish between Open Theism and Arminianism either. They do not belong in the same camp, and never have.

You made the claim, I asked you to back it up. You didn't. It matters not what I or Icon or Benjamin thinks about Olson's knowledge on the issues. There may be published authors on the matter who disagree with Olson but I challenge3 you to provide me any that substantiate your claims that amount to him being ignorant, uninformed, etc. I'm sure I can provide you with proof that many take him seriously. You've said your peace/piece? on the matter, your feelings are noted, I disagree and so now we can move on.

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes, I consider OT almost as serious an error as Hyper-Determinism which atrributes evil, among other things, unto the nature of God to support their doctrines of pre-detestination.:thumbs:

Hyper calvinism is also a harmful error that must be resisted...I agree.
I was thankful to see that you and Hos were being somewhat objective in this thread in that I know you would like to resist calvinism, and yet you were able to speak to the more serious issue of Ot being a denial of the biblical revelation of God.

If I can post in opposition to you[quite often:laugh:] i can support you when you speak up for the truth of God:thumbsup:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You made the claim, I asked you to back it up. You didn't.

You were asking me to prove a negative.........that is impossible, and you know it.

There may be published authors on the matter who disagree with Olson but I challenge3 you to provide me any that substantiate your claims that amount to him being ignorant, uninformed, etc.

The two fallacies extant here are these:
1.) Appeal to authority..........(a fallacy)
You are asking me to provide for you some "published author" who would contend that Olson doesn't understand Molinism sufficiently. That is fallacious in that, most respectable published authors wouldn't bother to respond to a mere blog post, and also, it wouldn't make them correct were they "published" or un-published. Olson is either right or wrong regardless of who agrees with him.....Didn't a few POPES actually defend the notion that the Earth was the center of the Universe and that the World was flat??? That is what an "Appeal to Authority" is, and you are SCREAMING for it.

2.) Straw-Man argumentation: (a fallacy)
No one has called Olson "ignorant and un-informed".........I am responding to your OP about Olson's contention about Open Theism being a legitimate form of Arminianism..........

Oson is quite smart, and informed...........GENERALLY. But I contend he is wrong on these issues, and patently so, and I don't mind saying so. I don't claim that Olson is "ignorant and un-informed"...I claim he is an expert on Arminianism, and he is wrong specifically about MK and Molinism. I can't "prove" that Olson is an idiot like you want me to........and NO decent respectable Academic is EVER so crass as to openly accuse another qualified scholar of "ignorance".........and an accredited and published and certified scholar Olson is.

You are trying to put me into an in-defensible position, and then pretend that since I won't argue for it, that it's a mere "tomAto"/Tomotto" situation....It isn't....and that therefore since I assert something, and you assert otherwise, our opinions cancell one another out. I call "Bull" again.

Here's the deal.........Respectable Arminians DON'T WANT Open Theists in their camp........Deal with it.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

If I can post in opposition to you[quite often:laugh:] i can support you when you speak up for the truth of God:thumbsup:

Always........I won't give you any free-rides when it comes to our areas of disagreement.....but, when you're right, you're right...and yeah, God happens to be Omniscient.