Openness View of Reality

[AresMan]

I think the text makes it clear that He was sorrowful over what Saul had done. The same Gen. 6:7. with the creation of man.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. God was indeed sorrowful over what happened.

So my question. Why would He be sorrowful for something He knew was going to happen and nothing would change it? If God created this man, and God predestined everything he would do why be sorrowful when he does it?[/FONT]

Hence, my point that God does not "repent" like a man. God can have emotions over what we do. Just because we cannot understand how this works from our finite vantage point it does not follow that it cannot be true of God.

Why. Do. We. Have. To. Define. God. According. To. OUR. Experiences?

Let me give you some (very imperfect) illustrations:

One of my wife's favorite movies is Fireproof. She has watched it more times than I can count. Even despite seeing it so many times that she probably has the dialog all memorized and knowing exactly what is going to happen, there is not a time that she watches it where she does not burst into tears. Sometimes she cries even more than on previous viewings. Why is this? Doesn't she know what is going to happen? Of course, she does!

May I submit that sometimes, knowing what will happen can intensify the emotional attachment in seeing it unfold! Think about it. God prophesied that the people would want a king to be like other nations even before they entered the promised land. After hundreds of years (for sake of argument to God's relationship with time), God then sees the people reject Him and do wrong as He said they would. Do you not see how emotionally devastating this would feel?

Just like if you told you child over and over not to do something because of the consequences and your child persists to argue that the consequences would never happen. In anger, you finally let your child do the thing. Sure enough, as you expected, your child faces the consequences. The surety that you had about the consequences, knowing they were going to happen on your stubborn child that you allowed to rebel, can actually intensify the emotional impact.

The existential theology of open theism argues wrongly that God must have the ability to be wrong (limitations of us finite creatures) to be "good," "genuine," "relational," and "personal."

 

[AresMan]

Because Open theism does not claim that God is stressed out or caught off guard as in what happens in the world. They believe that passage.

Check statements made by Sanders

http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/opentheism.htm

Adam made the "implausible" choice to disobey God and He was "shocked" by what happened. Sanders even suggests that the Cross itself was not guaranteed!

However...
Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
c.f. Deu 21:23.

Not to mention that the tendency with open theists is to gravitate toward inclusivism. Pinnock, Sanders, among others gradually shifted from classical Arminian soteriology to inclusivism. You know, because "love" (their understanding of it) is the "most important" attribute of God, and a "loving God" would not "send someone to hell" for "rejecting Jesus" if they "never heard of him"! Sanders and Pinnock believe that God takes people to heaven if they "make a faith move toward God," which can be done even in other religions without faith in the Person and Work of Christ.

They hold He knows all the possibilities and is able to handle what ever happens

In other words "neo-Molinism."

and the things that He does ordain will come to pass no matter what happens in between.

And how many things does God ordain and prophesy that contain human contingencies?

The selling of Joseph into Egypt.
The Crucifixion of Christ.
The betrayal of Christ for thirty pieces of silver and the suicide of the betrayer.
The encounters of Saul with people and what they would do to confirm him as king.
The naming of Cyrus and that he would "perform all My will."
The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

...and many more!

In other words all roads lead to the same ending, even though man has some freedom to pick which roads to get us there.

But that very (limited) "freedom" to act upon their own will is 100% in accordance with God's perfect will.

 

[OldRegular]

Why. Do. We. Have. To. Define. God. According. To. OUR. Experiences?

I believe the above demonstrates why "open theism" is heretical. Some may not like the use of that word but when we slice God as declared in Scripture down to our puny intellect that is heretical.

I believe that this is frequently the case. Some men who are learned begin to think, consciously or otherwise, that their intellect is on par with God. Heresy frequently results. I have always thought that Bishop Pike, who disappeared in Israel hunting the "historical" Jesus, epitomized this tragic character flaw.

 

[humblethinker]

He ordained everything that comes to pass. That doesn't mean that He meticulously has to tinker with everything to get it the way He wants.

Would you say then, that God is monergistic all aspects of salvation, including our response but that He is synergistic in some of the other aspects of life?

Not everything that He has ordained goes according to His thelw--His "wish" or "desire" reflected in His moral revelation--but everything is according to His ultimate (perfect) will.

So God ultimately desires the opposite of what he may presently desire? Likewise then God may presently desire something that he ultimately does not desire. That seems to defy 'devine simplicity'.

Just because He "ordained" everything, doesn't mean His creatures are robots.

God 'ordained' the Joker Killer? Is God doing all He can to minimize evil and maximize good?

They make all their choices according to their own will, without coercion. It just so happens that their choices also harmonize with God's ultimate decree.

Did God not give them the 'will' that they have or 'coerce' them into having the 'will' that they have? Now, that would explain their choices harmonizing with God's ultimate decree... Is that agreeable to your thinking?

 

[AresMan]

Would you say then, that God is monergistic all aspects of salvation, including our response but that He is synergistic in some of the other aspects of life?

I would definitely say that salvation is monergistic. I would say that there are "degrees" of God's involvement in what occurs--direct and indirect. But ultimately, nothing happens outside God's decree.

Think of a complex setup of dominos. Some things God makes happen by direct involvement in time, such as through a supernatural act to define events in history. Other things are a result of things that occur indirectly. God does not have to directly knock down every domino; however, He did decree how the board would be set up.

Now, do not accuse me of hard determinism in taking my imperfect illustration too far. The human will is much more complex than a "domino effect" and there is a limited degree of freedom--compatibilism. However, I do not see God and man both as autonomous, vacuous, equally participating contributors to the warp and woof of final reality. Reality is not increasing, it is unfolding.

So God ultimately desires the opposite of what he may presently desire? Likewise then God may presently desire something that he ultimately does not desire. That seems to defy 'devine simplicity'.

Is it your will that your children obey you 100%? Do you sometimes feel the "need" to let your children disobey you at their protest so that they learn consequences for their good to bring them closer to you?

Think about even the revelation of Scripture from you vantage point:
1. God "desires" that everyone be saved.
2. God also gives people "free will" to reject Him, and not be saved.

You would have to agree that God's desire in (2) is greater than His desire in (1). If not, God would guarantee that everyone is saved, because He obviously has the power to do that. That is why we would both agree that nothing violates God's perfect will, which is not the same as His prescriptive or moral will.

The same principal applies in a compatibilist view. God's "desire" to demonstrate "the praise of His glorious grace" AND "the praise of His glorious justice" is greater than His moral desire that all obey Him and are saved.

God 'ordained' the Joker Killer? Is God doing all He can to minimize evil and maximize good?

Let me ask you:
Was God aware of the plans of the Joker Killer before he carried them out? Why didn't He stop him?
Was God aware of what was going on when the Joker Killer started firing? Why didn't He stop him? Why didn't He at least prevent the bullets from killing people? He could have stopped the massacre from happening at any time, but He didn't.
Did God have more value and importance on the "free will" of the Joker Killer than on the very lives of those who were legally innocent? Is so, why?
If God had the power to stop this, and other tragedies, is He really doing all he can to minimize evil and maximize Good? According to human observation, the Calvinist AND the Open Theist would have to agree: NO.

And, just to let you know, I am not belittling the situation at all. I live rather close to where this happened. It really does hit home. My thoughts and prayers (as I am sure yours as well) are with those victims and their families. My point is that neither of our views from a human understanding solves one iota of "the problem of evil" in the grand scheme of things. Some things, like this, are best left to the mystery of God's will in that He can have a purpose that we do not understand that is ultimately good. However, it would be brazen and foolish of us to try to presume upon and define what that purpose is. We need to trust in God in the things that we don't understand, not just the things that we do understand.

Did God not give them the 'will' that they have or 'coerce' them into having the 'will' that they have? Now, that would explain their choices harmonizing with God's ultimate decree... Is that agreeable to your thinking?

God can give people their will, and He can change their will (such as in regeneration). However, people do act according to their will. If they didn't that would be coercion. God does not have to "coerce" someone to do something according to His decree if their volition ultimately depends on it. I think the problem of understanding comes from defining just what a "free will" is and what it is not.

 

[freeatlast]

He ordained everything that comes to pass. That doesn't mean that He meticulously has to tinker with everything to get it the way He wants. Not everything that He has ordained goes according to His thelw--His "wish" or "desire" reflected in His moral revelation--but everything is according to His ultimate (perfect) will.

Just because He "ordained" everything, doesn't mean His creatures are robots. They make all their choices according to their own will, without coercion. It just so happens that their choices also harmonize with God's ultimate decree.

I don't understand your logic. He ordained but He did not ordain?

 

[AresMan]

I don't understand your logic. He ordained but He did not ordain?

Not everything God ordained He had to bring about through direct intervention.

The problem is if you assume that the will of man must be totally autonomous from God.

 

[freeatlast]

I wholeheartedly agree with this. God was indeed sorrowful over what happened.

Hence, my point that God does not "repent" like a man. God can have emotions over what we do. Just because we cannot understand how this works from our finite vantage point it does not follow that it cannot be true of God.

Why. Do. We. Have. To. Define. God. According. To. OUR. Experiences?

Let me give you some (very imperfect) illustrations:

One of my wife's favorite movies is Fireproof. She has watched it more times than I can count. Even despite seeing it so many times that she probably has the dialog all memorized and knowing exactly what is going to happen, there is not a time that she watches it where she does not burst into tears. Sometimes she cries even more than on previous viewings. Why is this? Doesn't she know what is going to happen? Of course, she does!

May I submit that sometimes, knowing what will happen can intensify the emotional attachment in seeing it unfold! Think about it. God prophesied that the people would want a king to be like other nations even before they entered the promised land. After hundreds of years (for sake of argument to God's relationship with time), God then sees the people reject Him and do wrong as He said they would. Do you not see how emotionally devastating this would feel?

Just like if you told you child over and over not to do something because of the consequences and your child persists to argue that the consequences would never happen. In anger, you finally let your child do the thing. Sure enough, as you expected, your child faces the consequences. The surety that you had about the consequences, knowing they were going to happen on your stubborn child that you allowed to rebel, can actually intensify the emotional impact.

The existential theology of open theism argues wrongly that God must have the ability to be wrong (limitations of us finite creatures) to be "good," "genuine," "relational," and "personal."

"Hence, my point that God does not "repent" like a man. God can have emotions over what we do. Just because we cannot understand how this works from our finite vantage point it does not follow that it cannot be true of God."

The same is true about those who hold that not every event is set in stone predestined by God. If God at the time of creation or before predestined man's evil including Saul's evil then there is no reason for Him being upset. That is what openness holds. Hyperism in Calvinism holds that God has predestined every event and God already knows it will all happen and yet he gets upset. That is the error.

 

[freeatlast]

But that very (limited) "freedom" to act upon their own will is 100% in accordance with God's perfect will.

Agreed, except I don't believe God has a perfect will if sugesting He also has an permissive will, but Calvinism does not teach that man has free will at least not the Calvinists on this board that I have seen.

 

[freeatlast]

Not everything God ordained He had to bring about through direct intervention.

The problem is if you assume that the will of man must be totally autonomous from God.

1) how is it ordained then? What is your definition of "ordained."


2) If man's will is not autonomous then it is not man's will.

 

[humblethinker]

Let me ask you:
Was God aware of the plans of the Joker Killer before he carried them out? Why didn't He stop him?
Was God aware of what was going on when the Joker Killer started firing? Why didn't He stop him? Why didn't He at least prevent the bullets from killing people? He could have stopped the massacre from happening at any time, but He didn't.
Did God have more value and importance on the "free will" of the Joker Killer than on the very lives of those who were legally innocent? Is so, why?
If God had the power to stop this, and other tragedies, is He really doing all he can to minimize evil and maximize Good? According to human observation, the Calvinist AND the Open Theist would have to agree: NO.

I think we both believe that prior to creation God committed himself to the project of this creation. That He would faithfully create and participate in this project to maturation. This He determined and it cannot be the case that He abandons this project prematurely.

We both think the same about what is contained in my above paragraph. In this God IS deterministic and we are both very happy with this. We both agree that He will get the glory and praise for what He has done. We both agree that God's character is such that He can not deceive Himself. We both agree on much more as well.

What comes after God's expressed determination of such an endeavor - this is where we disagree and our disagreement is best framed by the question, "What kind of world did God create?"

You may think that my opinion of what kind of world He has created is invalid or less acurate than yours but one thing neither of us should do: Assume the premises of my view and then add the opposing claims of your view in an attempt to arrive at an 'objective' authoritative acusation. Let us not slander and malign one another in our acusations which are derived by our use of diverse weights and diverse measures (Proverbs 20:10). Let's argue over each others premises. Let's argue over the internal incoherence of each other's views. We do a disservice to ourselves and each other when we tilt at windmills.

I believe He created a world in which He is genuinely affected by and responds to what we do. He created us with the freedom that is required for a relationship of true love to develop. In this creation the future exists only in the form of the events He has pre-determined (especially his faithfulness to see this project carried to maturation) and in the possibilities that exist at the present moment. The 'future' is not a created thing that fills space or consists of matter nor is it a time or place to which one could 'travel' at any speed other than that of the present. The present is ever 'unfolding', to borrow your figure, and that which is 'folded up' is not just more 'time' but is the determinations and possibilities. The actualization of all of the determinations and only some of the possibilities is what is called the present moment. I believe that scripture does not make any of these views invalid and what's more I believe that there is good evidence that the Bible supports these views.

To answer your questions above, Before He created the world, God knew of all possibilities, of which were all potential evil actions. So that the love from creature to creator would be genuine, God gave man freedom. To the extent of which the freedom to reject God's love was limited, so would be the extent to which one could reciprocate love to God and others. What the limits to freedom are, God only knows but the demonstration of the extremes of evil by humans is not to be outdone by the redemption God can acomplish.

If the living victims of this violence were to ask an answer of me, I would be unashamed to kindly say the above and that this persons actions wrought evil in this world and in their life for which God did not intend.

...is He really doing all he can to minimize evil and maximize Good? According to human observation, the Calvinist AND the Open Theist would have to agree: NO.

Why wouldn't he do such? To the degree that 'free will' theologies concur with what I proposed above, I think the distinction between them and Calvinism is very large, clear and obvious, and this to Calvinism's shame.

 

[freeatlast]

And how many things does God ordain and prophesy that contain human contingencies?

The selling of Joseph into Egypt.
The Crucifixion of Christ.
The betrayal of Christ for thirty pieces of silver and the suicide of the betrayer.
The encounters of Saul with people and what they would do to confirm him as king.
The naming of Cyrus and that he would "perform all My will."
The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

...and many more!
.

Yes but not all things are ordained. No one is disputing that God ordains or that which he ordains comes to pass exactly as He ordains it. However there is no reason to hold that every event in all history is pre-ordained. That is part of the gap between openness and Calvinism.
By the way I do not subscribe to openness as it goes too far in my opinion, but so does Calvinism, and all the other isms. I am simply trying to show that they do have some bases for some of what they hold.

 

[freeatlast]

I would add this. In open theism some hold that God knew all the possibilities. I am more of the mind that God set or ordained all the possibilities within His creation and man chooses which ones to take but all end up at the point of His direct predetermined will such as things like the cross or any other prophesy He makes.
I do not believe there are possibilities outside of God's control which causes Him to re-set His plans, but that He has allowed for man in interact with Himself within what He has ordained and the possibilities are what makes that possible yet with the impossibility for man to thwart the plan of God. Thus God elects and man exercises free will, while neither coerces the other, both working together to bring some to salvation and complete His will.

 

[AresMan]

I believe He created a world in which He is genuinely affected by and responds to what we do. He created us with the freedom that is required for a relationship of true love to develop. In this creation the future exists only in the form of the events He has pre-determined (especially his faithfulness to see this project carried to maturation) and in the possibilities that exist at the present moment. The 'future' is not a created thing that fills space or consists of matter nor is it a time or place to which one could 'travel' at any speed other than that of the present. The present is ever 'unfolding', to borrow your figure, and that which is 'folded up' is not just more 'time' but is the determinations and possibilities. The actualization of all of the determinations and only some of the possibilities is what is called the present moment. I believe that scripture does not make any of these views invalid and what's more I believe that there is good evidence that the Bible supports these views.

So, for God to be "genuine" and "relational" to His creatures, He has to "risk the project," which means that horrible, unmitigated evil is allowed to happen to "innocent" people for the benefit of the "free will" of evil people?

So, if tragic evil happens (for which there is no mysterious divine purpose), and I know that I and God alike are both sighing in shock and surprise (yet He had the power to stop it), upon what basis do I trust in God?

To answer your questions above, Before He created the world, God knew of all possibilities, of which were all potential evil actions. So that the love from creature to creator would be genuine, God gave man freedom. To the extent of which the freedom to reject God's love was limited, so would be the extent to which one could reciprocate love to God and others. What the limits to freedom are, God only knows but the demonstration of the extremes of evil by humans is not to be outdone by the redemption God can acomplish.

So, again, the possibility of tragic evil that God allows to happen unmitigated because there is no mysterious purpose in God's eternal decree, and He didn't know it would happen, is necessary and definitional of "genuine" love? That is a tough pill to swallow!

Do you understand what you are saying? Basically, evil is necessary for the very definition and existence of love (dualism). God cannot be "genuine" and love cannot be "genuine" without libertarian free will, which must be an eternal maxim, and must provide that both "good" and "evil" are equal "possibilities."

If the living victims of this violence were to ask an answer of me, I would be unashamed to kindly say the above and that this persons actions wrought evil in this world and in their life for which God did not intend.

But, what comfort and trust in God does it provide someone to say that God was "surprised" by it. If such evil acts are unmitigated in the eternal scheme of purpose (because God didn't know), why trust in God? Upon what basis is there to trust in God?

 

[AresMan]

I would add this. In open theism some hold that God knew all the possibilities. I am more of the mind that God set or ordained all the possibilities within His creation and man chooses which ones to take but all end up at the point of His direct predetermined will such as things like the cross or any other prophesy He makes.
I do not believe there are possibilities outside of God's control which causes Him to re-set His plans, but that He has allowed for man in interact with Himself within what He has ordained and the possibilities are what makes that possible yet with the impossibility for man to thwart the plan of God. Thus God elects and man exercises free will, while neither coerces the other, both working together to bring some to salvation and complete His will.

If God does not know something as true, then later knows it, reality has increased. God has increased. If God's knowledge is perfect (Job 36:4; 37:16), then it cannot increase. Hence, God must know the future free actions of His creatures exhaustively (not as "possibilities") (John 13:18-19).

 

[freeatlast]

If God does not know something as true, then later knows it, reality has increased. God has increased. If God's knowledge is perfect (Job 36:4; 37:16), then it cannot increase. Hence, God must know the future free actions of His creatures exhaustively (not as "possibilities") (John 13:18-19).

I realize that is the premise that some hold, but the bible simply does not bare it out.
That is like saying that because God is perfect He cannot create anything less them Himself or that can fail as only perfect can come from perfect because it would show a flaw in God. The problem is that God did create man and man fails regularly.

And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make [it].

 

[humblethinker]

So, for God to be "genuine" and "relational" to His creatures, He has to "risk the project," which means that horrible, unmitigated evil is allowed to happen to "innocent" people for the benefit of the "free will" of evil people?

No, the Project is never at risk. It will 'end' or mature just as He has determined: with Him winning.

So, if tragic evil happens (for which there is no mysterious divine purpose), and I know that I and God alike are both sighing in shock and surprise (yet He had the power to stop it), upon what basis do I trust in God?

This is a fallacy of equivocation. It is not the case that your 'shock' and God's 'shock' (as you put it) are alike. It can not be that you and God are 'shocked', as you say, in the same way. You of course had no idea of the possibility, therefore you are shocked when the event is actualized. It is never the case that God has no idea of the possibility so therefore He is not shocked in the same way as you are. He does, however appreciate the improbability of the event which is a better explanation of the phenomena you proposed.

Here's two examples:
Mark 6:1-6
And he marveled because of their unbelief.

Matthew 8:1-10
When Jesus heard it, he marveled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

So, it was not the case that God marveled due to being caught unaware. I believe it was the case that God had an appreciation for such an unlikely event and that this appreciation was expressed by marveling. (This also is a good reason why he would get angry... or feel ANY emotion. Do you believe that God feels true emotion of various kinds at different times? If so how do you justify your belief?) How do you explain the verses above? It seems that your explanation would deny that God truly felt the way the scriptures say he did.

So, again, the possibility of tragic evil that God allows to happen unmitigated because there is no mysterious purpose in God's eternal decree, and He didn't know it would happen, is necessary and definitional of "genuine" love? That is a tough pill to swallow!

Do you understand what you are saying? Basically, evil is necessary for the very definition and existence of love (dualism). God cannot be "genuine" and love cannot be "genuine" without libertarian free will, which must be an eternal maxim, and must provide that both "good" and "evil" are equal "possibilities."

I disagree in your premise and conclusion. It is not the case that good and evil must be equal in their odds to actually obtain. I might say that it is only necessary that the option be available to the creature... it can be the case that the rejecting God is improbable, as was the case with Adam prior to his sin. God's character is and always has been in a solidified (unchangeable) state, such that it is a logical contradiction that 'God could reject Himself'. God's libertarian free will is partly defined and predicted by his inability to reject himself; this is not a contradiction. Our libertarian free will is partly defined and predicted in that we can reject Him, and neither is this a contradiction.

But, what comfort and trust in God does it provide someone to say that God was "surprised" by it. If such evil acts are unmitigated in the eternal scheme of purpose (because God didn't know), why trust in God? Upon what basis is there to trust in God?

You are equivocating in your use of the word 'surprised'. It is one thing to be surprised by an event for which you had no idea of its potential obtaining. It is another thing to be able to appreciate the improbability of an event. Closed theism has no provision for God appreciating any kind of improbability, which is why you MUST anthropomorphize all such readings in scripture that show God appreciating such.

The fact that God created a world in which no human was necessarily doomed to sin does provide some measure of resolution to the problem of evil. It does not resolve it completely for me, but it does provide a better means to manage the tension. And, what makes this even better for mankind is that God provided a rescue for when man did sin, which makes him all the more wonderful, praiseworthy and admirable than a God who rigs both sides of the 'game' and then deceives himself into thinking that the others' praise and admiration of Him is genuinely their own.
ever at risk. It will 'end' or mature just as He has determined: with Him winning.

So, if tragic evil happens (for which there is no mysterious divine purpose), and I know that I and God alike are both sighing in shock and surprise (yet He had the power to stop it), upon what basis do I trust in God?

It can not be that you and God are 'shocked', as you say, in the same way. You of course had no idea of the possibility, therefore your shocked when the event is actualized. It is never the case that God has no idea of the possibility so He is not shocked in the same way as you are. He does, however appreciate the improbability of the event.

Here's two examples:
Mark 6:1-6
And he marvelled because of their unbelief.

Matthew 8:1-10
When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

So, it was not the case that God marveled due to being caught unaware. I believe it was the case that God had an apreciation for such an unlikely event and that this apreciation was expressed by marvelling. (This also is a good reason why he would get angry... or feel ANY emotion. Do you believe that God feels true emotion of various kinds at different times? If so how do you justify your belief?) How do you explain the verses above? It seems that your explanation would deny that God truly felt the way the scriptures say he did.

So, again, the possibility of tragic evil that God allows to happen unmitigated because there is no mysterious purpose in God's eternal decree, and He didn't know it would happen, is necessary and definitional of "genuine" love? That is a tough pill to swallow!

Do you understand what you are saying? Basically, evil is necessary for the very definition and existence of love (dualism). God cannot be "genuine" and love cannot be "genuine" without libertarian free will, which must be an eternal maxim, and must provide that both "good" and "evil" are equal "possibilities."

I disagree in your premise and conclusion. It is not the case that good and evil must be equal in their odds to actually obtain. I might say that it is only necessary that the option be available to the creature... it can be the case that the rejecting God is improbable, as was the case with Adam prior to his sin. God's character is and always has been in a solidified (unchangeable) state, such that it is a logical contradiction that 'God could reject Himself'. God's libertarian free will is partly defined and predicted by his inability to reject himself; this is not a contradiction. Our libertarian free will is partly defined and predicted in that we can reject Him, and neither is this a contradiction.

But, what comfort and trust in God does it provide someone to say that God was "surprised" by it. If such evil acts are unmitigated in the eternal scheme of purpose (because God didn't know), why trust in God? Upon what basis is there to trust in God?

You are equivocating in your use of the word 'surprised'. It is one thing to be surprised by an event for which you had no idea of its potential obtaining. It is another thing to be aware of an improbable event and then to be able to apreciate the improbability of the event when it actually obtains. Closed theism has no provision for God appreciating any kind of improbability, which is why you MUST anthropomorphise all such readings in scripture that show God apreciating such.

The fact that God created a world in which no human was necessarily doomed to sin does provide some measure of resolution to the problem of evil. It does not resolve it completely for me, but it does provide a better means to manage the tension. And, what makes this even better for mankind is that God provided a rescue for when man did sin, which makes him allthemore wonderful, praiseworthy and admirable.

 

[humblethinker]

last post

Looks like I double pisted or something on that last post. too late to edit it, sorry about that.