 |
| 
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 11/7/2005 10:29 PM (GMT -6) |   | Just a brief post before I dash on home after a long day's work.
Jeff: If its LFW, there is NO effectual call in the way you and I believe. But still, openness is, for all of us OV'ers, related to LFW. No LFW, no OV.
Alan: I think the OV is even more flexible than that, Jeff. Seems to me that OV doesn't even entail LFW. As long as there is some type of real indeterminacy in how things turn out, whether this is a result of LFW, quantum indeterminacy, or what have you, the OV would conclude that God's knowledge is correspondingly open (or dynamic) in that respect. So I wouldn't say "No LFW, no OV". Rather, I would say "No causally open future, no OV".
That said, you'd be quite right to respond that nearly all (if not in fact all) OVers do affirm LFW, at least in some matters. But even there whether we have LFW with respect to salvation (synergism) or not (monergism) is not essential to the OV. Though, again, most (but I'm pretty sure not all) OVers would take a synergistic position on salvation.
Regards,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 11/7/2005 10:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Oops, I had meant to post this as a reply on the "Dynamic Omniscience" thread. I hit the "New Topic" button by mistake when I meant to hit the "Reply" button.
Feel free to kill this thread if you want, Corey.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:02 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|