Am I practicing boundary maintainence? Or is Blake Ostler?
“It may appear that open theism emerges as the only viable alternative for a theology that seek to maintain that: (1) we are free to choose whether to return God’s love with our own love; and (2) God is not directly culpable for evil events and choices. Both of these features seem to me to be essential to any sound religious worldview. Because open theists affirm that God has a general plan but not complete foreknowledge or sovereign control, they can apparently escape the implications of Calvinism and Thomism regarding divin causality and Molinism regarding middle knowledge. It appears that open theism alone can affirm that God’s plan does not entail that persons are not free and that God is responsible for our evil acts” (emphasis mine, in Blake’s Vol. 2, pp. 409-410).
Clark Pinnock would maintain that Calvinists defy logic: “It should be clear to the reader why the number of strict Calvinists is relatively small. It involves one in agonizing difficulties of the first order. It makes God some kind of terrorist who goes around handing out torture and disaster and even willing people to do things the Bible says that God hates.”
Blake Ostler would maintain that open theists defy logic if they believe in creatio ex nihilo.
Logic . . . it is a handy tool, isn’t it?