1. Last time I check, God is the standard of reality, past, present and future.
I don't think an Open Theist would disagree with that statement, although they would have different ideas regarding the current existence of the future.
1. Here's a quote from a well-known Open Theist, Gregory A. Boyd:
"In the Christian view God knows all of reality—everything there is to know. But to assume He knows ahead of time how every person is going to freely act assumes that each person’s free activity is already there to know—even before he freely does it! But it’s not. If we have been given freedom, we create the reality of our decisions by making them. And until we make them, they don’t exist. Thus, in my view at least, there simply isn’t anything to know until we make it there to know.
So God can’t foreknow the good or bad decisions of the people He creates until He creates these people and they, in turn, create their decisions" (Gregory A. Boyd and Edward K. Boyd,
Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with His Father’s Questions about Christianity [Colorado Springs, CO: Cook Communication Ministries, 1994], 30, emphasis mine).
2. I guess Isaiah was besides himself when he writes, “I am God, and there is none like me.
Only I can tell you the future before it even happens. Everything I plan will come to pass, for I do whatever I wish” (46:9-10, emphasis added).
Um, this is not an answer to my question, merely an attack against Open Theists. It seems that your chief problem with Open Theism is that it is not Calvinism.
3. It has nothing to do with Calvinism; my attack is against any system of thought that wishes to diminish the true nature of God, and that is exactly what Open Theism is doing--it assaults the omniscience of God.
No, this goes back to the concept of time as merely existing in the present... the future does not exist and the past is just a memory.
4. God transcends the space-time dimension, my friend. Make sure to get that right.
To an Open Theist, what we describe as "time" is a sequence of events, not a linear thing where everything in time is simultaneously apparent to God. Open Theism rejects the apparent fatalism of Calvinism where all of our choices are predetermined and we are merely going through the pretense of "living" this life.
5. Now, the Open Theist wishes to bound the transcendent God by his feeble understanding of time. Amazing!
6. Not once have I argued Calvinism in these posts. Where are you getting this Calvinism thing from?
And regarding knowledge of possibilities, an Open Theist would say that God knows everything that can be known, including our likely choices and what He intends to do and will do in order to keep the flow of history moving toward the results He intends.
7. Is this knowledge of God from eternity? If it is, then what you are saying sounds different to what Dr. Boyd is saying, as the quote above shows.
So you believe that every disaster and crime is not caused by bad choices, sin, or human inattention... it is caused directly by God?
8. Are you willing to go into a discussion of Theodicy?
I don't think so. Amos 3 is a specific prophecy written in a specific context talking about their coming judgment. Tearing that verse out of context to create a doctrine that "God causes train wrecks" creates sloppy and destructive theology.
9. You are making too much out of my reference to Amos 3:6. Maybe we should discuss the concept of Theodicy.
To turn the question you posed about Open Theism back to you: Why is the God you present worthy to be worshipped?
10. Let me quote the Psalms: "Come, let us worship and bow down. Let us kneel before the Lord our Maker. For He is our God, and we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand" (95:6, 7).
I don't think I phrased my previous answer very well... It seems to me that the God posited by Calvinism is less of a Person(s) and more of an impersonal static force without "passions" (as the Westminster Confession would say) that is focused on power and demonstrating majesty than love and compassion. To me, the concept of predestination seems intellectually dishonest and is used as a way to justify a somewhat faithful view of God while ensuring that certain Greek concepts of philosophy, such as perfection and impassibility, are preserved. But if God is involved with human beings in a loving, compassionate, redemptive way, then God must be responsive (changing) and "passionate" unless you somehow shift everything to predestination so God can say "I meant to do that" and "see, I didn't change at all."
11. You seem to want to term this into a Calvinism verses Open Theism debate. Let's deal with the Open Theism in light of Scripture.
God doesn't need improvement, but He does associate Himself with humanity. The Incarnation makes that very clear.
12. And somehow, that association has cost Him his omniscience according to the Open Theist.
An Open Theist would say that same thing, but they would define sovereignty more generously and less woodenly and would take human responsibility much more literally and seriously.
13. May I remind you that the universe revolves around God and not man. And who says that affirming the sovereignty of God makes God wooden. A proper understanding of God and human responsibility is in order.
