We have here three authors asserting that God immutably decreed at creation that I would, in error, disagree with them on this point, versus one arguing that he did not. I simply cannot make myself believe that absolutely everything that happens is God's will (and that's the contention of a settled view of the future, even if you try to play games with the word "will"), and so I am an open theist.

Which isn't to say that the case for open theism presented here is totally airtight. The other contributors have some good criticisms. I think we need a new conception of freedom (and of possibility) different from the "compatibilist" and "libertarian" notions that applies equally to God and to the independent (someone's going to take issue with my use of that word) spiritual beings (including humans) he has created. We are free in the same sense that God is free, whatever that sense may be, because that's how God chose to make us. Of course, the God-given power that we freely exercise is limited, and we exercise it based on limited knowledge, but we exercise it in the same way that God exercises his unlimited, underived power. Such a proper formulation of freedom should sidestep the responses (especially Craig's) to Boyd without even requiring specific counter-refutations, which one might call shifting the goalposts. But that's only a legitimate criticism if the goalposts were correctly positioned in the first place.

Universalism and open theism are much easier to defend together than separately, which makes sense, since the whole truth answers more questions than the partial truth. But then, see Kierkegaard on defense of Christianity in general constituting stupidity…

A general weakness of the "Counterpoints" format is on display here: it's useful in introducing conflicting opinions and pointing out objections to each from the perspective of each other, but it leaves it to the reader to identify precise points of disagreement over basic axioms that must usually be chosen without justification based on personal experience. In some ways, an interactive dialogue might be more useful, wherein one author starts explaining his position till another disagrees, at which point the objector takes over, and so on, but that format has its own obvious weaknesses, especially not allowing any given perspective to be fully and coherently articulated.

I could say lots more, but it would just demonstrate my inability to disagree politely, and no one cares, anyway.

(Wed 04 May 2022 1:01:27 AM CDT)