Innate vs Self-Imposed Dependencies

Does God depend upon anything in creation? Everyone agrees that God has no need of things like food, water, shelter, rest, etc. We often refer to this as God’s aseity –His independence of His creation.

So God has no innate need of these things, and is utterly self-sufficient. But can God take on a need in some sense? God the Son certainly did in a way when He walked the earth, but let’s go a little deeper than even that. Reading in Genesis and beyond, we see God making promises to people.

“For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.” (Romans 4:13)

Since God cannot lie (Heb 6:18), then it follows that He must fulfill the covenants He has made. In terms of His independence, something has changed: He is no longer completely independent of creation. God cannot fail (not that He would want to anyway, but bear with me) in His good promises towards His faithful. That produces something of a two-way dependency relationship between God and creation. We have need of God to sustain us, and God needs to sustain us to be faithful to His covenants.

The idea of God depending on us in any sense may seem awkward, so I’ll illustrate by example: If God did not sustain us, we would cease to be (for He holds all things together, Col 1:17). God made a covenant with Abraham (His creation), to show him mercy and make him co-heir of all things. Having made such a covenant, He cannot go back on it. God’s faithfulness depends upon Abraham existing and inheriting eternal life. Not that God needs Abraham to feed or clothe Him, but rather, He cannot unmake Abraham or consign him to Hell; He must bless Abraham as He promised for the sake of His faithfulness. God’s faithfulness requires that Abraham live eternally.

God having a requirement or need of some kind? Doesn’t that contradict God’s independence from creation? Not quite: Aseity is God’s innate independence from creation. God never had to create Abraham or make such promises in the first place. It says nothing against the idea of God taking on a sort of self-imposed, indirect dependency through the act of creation or making covenants. This is something that God Himself chose to do.

Objections on Omniscience

Some Calvinists have objected that such a view of aseity is deficient, especially as it pertains to God’s omniscience. That is, God creating people as free agents, and knowing what we will do based upon what we actually do (as opposed to scripting all our choices out for us); they frame this as God needing creation to be omniscient. One particularly bad objection comes from a certain cage-stage Calvinist we’ve interacted with, who insists that we must logically be denying God’s aseity because of His entering into a voluntary dependence with creation. It’s not that we haven’t alluded to the argument above before.

[Me]: That is true, God is faithful regardless of whether there is a world, just as He is omniscient. Catch is, God’s faithfulness now doesn’t just exist by itself, He is not only innately faithful, but He is now faithful to people like Abraham. God being faithful to Abraham requires that there be an Abraham. Our over-eager objector is confusing God’s immutable attributes with the relational, optional specifics encompassed by those attributes. (Calvinism’s Inconsistencies on God’s Attributes)

Problem is, he still doesn’t seem to recognize the difference between optional aspects of an attribute versus the attribute itself.

So, my dilemma of irrelevance or absurdity stands. If these examples where relevant, then God’s acts cause him to change himself…

While God’s innate attributes themselves do not change (He is always Holy, faithful, etc.), some optional aspects of them do (such as who He is faithful to). God was not in a relationship with Abraham before Abraham existed, but He is now. If we buy our objector’s hyper-Hellenized objection to God having some sort of ‘change,’ then we must also logically reject God taking on the self-imposed dependencies of having to fulfill His covenants, thus jettisoning the biblical promises of God in the process.

Calvinism Makes God Innately Dependent

The point that I brought up that these things aren’t “optional aspects” at all.

If such things as who God is faithful to aren’t optional for Him, then they can only be necessary to Him, meaning that God had no choice in the matter. Hence, my deductive proof  holds:

P1 To be truly omniscient requires that one’s beliefs match reality.
P2 Per [high] Calvinism, God innately and immutably believes that creation comes into existence (becomes a reality).
C Therefore, per Calvinism, God innately and immutably requires that creation comes into existence to be truly omniscient.

Far from establishing God’s aseity, Calvinism (at least our objector’s version) changes God’s relational dependency upon creation from a thing that’s self-imposed, into an innate need.

Objector: Now, he doesn’t grant the distinction between natural and free knowledge in this argument.

Our objector’s view of aseity entails that everything God knows about the world is essential to His being and immutable, there could be no such thing as ‘free knowledge’ by such a view.

Innate Knowledge and the Authorship of Sin

The above absurdity isn’t the only reason why God’s knowledge of the world can’t be innate to Himself. The problem of God being the author of evil also makes such a view logically impossible if we accept the testimony of scripture. As I’ve repeatedly argued without substantial challenge, the Bible is very clear that sinful things (lust, pride, etc) do not come from God (1 John 2:16), and that in fact there is no such darkness in Him at all (1 John 1:5). Our objector does his thing:

This section is about the “Authorship of Evil” objection he dragging out because his doctrine of God is so bad. He is too inept to know that this is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the fact his position doesn’t allow for aseity to be the case.

We can not only show it’s relevance, we can prove it via the rules of logical implication. If I have the implication,

P → Q (P implies Q),

then if I can show that Q is false, I also show that P is false, or,

~Q → ~P

This is called the Law of Contrapositive. It also works for multiple implications, e.g., for,

P → Q → R


~R → ~Q → ~P.

So if I can deduce,

Legal American Voter → American Citizen → Human

If the subject is a Cocker Spaniel, that implies,

Not Human → Not American Citizen → Not Legal American Voter

The necessary implications of our objector’s position are,

If the High-Calvinist version of aseity is true → everything that happens finds its source in God’s mind → sinful actions find their source in God

Logically then, since the there is no such darkness in God,

Per 1 John, sinful actions do not find their source in God → not everything that happens finds its source in God’s mind → the High Calvinist view of God’s aseity is false

Bottom Line

  • Divine Aseity implies God having no innate needs, it does not preclude God taking on a self-imposed relationship with some kind of dependency in creation.
  • Knowledge of, and covenants with free agents that God freely chose to create would obviously be self-imposed relationships.
  • Actual knowledge of a thing’s existence requires that the thing exist; so God having innate knowledge of creation’s existence (as some Calvinists argue) means that He innately needs creation to exist.
  • The popular high Calvinist view of God’s aseity implies that all of man’s actions, including his wicked motives and deeds, come from God; 1 John 1 & 2 directly refute such a claim.


10 thoughts on “Innate vs Self-Imposed Dependencies

  1. You can see his additional commentary here, though I’d recommend it for entertainment purposes only.

    On why he thinks choices are random:

    @But his article gives no explanation for why they aren’t blips of chance.

    Besides the fact that there’s no reason to buy his counter-intuitive assertion in the first place, free will being random (as I point out in the article) would imply that God also chooses ‘by chance’ as well.

    @He has to demonstrate why it is necessary for me to conflate omniscience with foreknowledge.

    I said he’s conflating omniscience with the specifics of God’s knowledge (not ‘foreknowledge’).

    @It isn’t like God becomes a better being by exercising these “optional aspects”.

    Has anyone ever argued this?

    @The only consistent understanding of these passages from his perspective is to take it that God in his immanence is not omniscient.

    By moon-logic apparently.

    @Objector: He doesn’t actually explain my objection

    Last I checked, explaining his objection is his job, not mine.

    @If he thinks God in immanence is omniscient, then why can he change his mind?

    Does he believe God changes His mind?

    @So, in terms of this, Thibodaux believes created facts cause God to know the future. Very Open Theist like.

    Hmm…yes…my arguing for God being above time and knowing the end from the beginning seems pretty Open Theisty now that I think about it.

    @Objector: If taken consistently he would maintain that all of God is incarnate.

    If anyone has any clue what in blue blazes he’s talking about, please leave a comment.

  2. The dearest Objector gives a few more replies. They’re honestly so vacuous and inane that I won’t even dignify them with another post, but I can dismantle his few remaining points here:

    @That means anyone’s interpretation of the facts if reality could by chance be equally valid to God’s interpretation of the facts. So, the true Arminian is a relativist.

    How could that be, since God is the Law-Giver, and thus by definition the Arbiter of what is correct? That’s just sophist nonsense.

    @Aseity is broader than God being independent of creation. … To deny God’s knowledge is coterminous with his being leads to a denial of aseity and simplicity.

    Much as Calvinists abuse the word ‘sovereignty’ to mean far more than sovereignty actually entails, so determinists do with God’s aseity. I believe in God’s innate independence of creation, not some n00b’s redefinition of terms.

    @The authorship of evil argument lacks sufficient definition.

    Already defined in the article I linked to on the Authorship of Sin ( [see the heading “What is meant by ‘author of sin?'”].

    @The reason we suppose that they are blips of chance is that no explanation other than randomness can explain why one makes a choice at all on such a scheme.
    [Quoting Frame]: “On the open theists’ libertarian concept of freedom, human free decisions have no cause: not God, not the natural order, not even their own desires. But if my decision is not caused by my desire, then it is something I don’t want to do. So even I do not cause my free decisions. They are random, arbitrary, irrational events, like the realm of Prime Matter among the Greeks. Not only does this view fail to give a rational account of free choice, it makes any such account impossible.”

    Frame is attacking the Open Theist view of libertarian freedom, not mine. I can’t speak for Open Theists, but I believe free will decisions are caused by a person’s will (which is free…hence the name), and have already linked to the refutation for his objection: So again, we have no evidence for the counter-intuitive, irrational, and logically baseless claim that free will can only be the result of randomness.

    [in answer to my syllogism about Calvinism making God innately dependent upon creation]
    @The ultimate truth of the matter is that Divine Freedom is mysterious.

    Translation: “I can’t wiggle out of this argument.” Point proven. High Calvinism makes God innately dependent upon creation.

    @What has been stated is that God’s manifestations must reflect who he is or he would be different. So what? Did anyone argue that? No. But the difference is that God’s foreknowledge isn’t a worldly manifestation of the good character of God but deals with the being of God(his omniscience).

    But keeping His promises is still a self-imposed dependency, thus refuting our objector’s made-up definition of aseity.

  3. My second response to the Objector (Calvinist Debate: Talking Past the Argument) pointed out that our dearest n00b repeatedly fails to interact with what I’ve written in any meaningful way. He’s only gotten worse, not only insinuating I believe things that I never argued, but even things I explicitly rejected.

    @These acts of faithfulness don’t make God faithful. God’s acts of love don’t make God-loving. … God’s creation doesn’t make him what he is.

    I very clearly stated the opposite.

    @He may think God-knowledge isn’t innate to him(God consults facts or something) but that seems to concede qualities of God are dependent upon the world. But if God’s qualities are dependent upon the world then it implies the world is necessary as well because God wouldn’t be himself if he hadn’t created. … @How can we attribute both immutablity and mutablity you the same nature?

    God’s nature doesn’t change. What one knows is not equivalent to one’s nature. Already refuted.

    @By positing another notion where God isn’t self-contained but is explained by something other than himself, you are thus stating God isn’t ultimate in your worldview.

    @The first argument is that if we understand God as being simple then it follows that these attributes all are applicable to God’s entire nature. So, this undermines the notion that God’s foreknowledge is caused by the things God creates. Why? It would leave God with modes of being a se and not a se. The conflict would make God contradictory.

    Both points already refuted.

    Besides being no challenge to defeat in debate, and his inability to even follow what’s being said, his slurs such as accusing me of believing that God isn’t ultimate, have already been proven baseless, and are therefore outright lies.

    I make it a point not to discuss theology with dishonest people, in keeping with Matthew 7:6. Theology is to enrich our understanding of God, people who don’t fear God enough to obey Him have no part in it. I exhort him instead to repent and turn from such carnal works.


    @This notion of God being the ultimate explanation of all things is essential to aseity.

    God needs to meticulously determine our choices to be independent of creation? Non-sequitur.

    @He makes God so immanent in the world that he no longer transcends it and becomes another fact needing an explanation.

    This doesn’t follow from my beliefs. Non-sequitur.

    @The very notion that God has libertarian freedom entails that God may act contrary to his reason and character.

    Freedoms have limits. Oh yeah, non-sequitur.

    @I’ve explained that that [all of God being incarnate] is the only plausible view where God is both timeless and temporal.

    Temporal =/= incarnate. Someone needs learn some basic definitions. Non-sequitur.

    @It may come to pass where humans would act contrary to his plan or interpretation(because they possess LFW).

    Which assumes that God can’t foreknow free will choices and plan accordingly. Question-begging.

    @I just suppose he doesn’t understand the motives that people have for creating his position.

    Note: I came to my own position based upon what I read in scripture, not positions created by other people.
    Also, attacking an idea based upon the supposed motives of its creators is genetic fallacy.

    @I don’t think God’s promises entail that he becomes ontologically dependent upon the world

    I never argued anything about God having ontological dependencies. I have consistently argued that God is who He is regardless of whether the world exists or not, but that God does now depend upon some entities in the world to remain faithful to who He is.

    @You posit some abstract impersonal thing like the notion of chance in place of God being ultimate because even God is explained by chance.

    Look through anything I’ve written, I’ve never said argued anything remotely like God being explained by chance. Strawman.

    @…if the world has divine qualities then the world is divine.

    I’ve never argued anything like this. Strawman.

    @How can one reconcile that God changes his mind and doesn’t change his mind?

    I’ve never argued this. Strawman.

    Despite all this, he has the gall to assert:

    @it is your responsibility to accurately represent the objections I present to your readers.


  5. Our dearest n00b objector shows amazing endurance in shoveling out more silliness. It’s just as easily dismissed.

    @So, you have to further explain where the fault is with my argument.

    Already done in showing that God is the Arbiter of what is correct (see above). Any variance from the Arbiter’s definition, by definition, would be incorrect.

    @Those are men that all agreed with the points I provided from them. So, Thibodaux is a doofus to think I’m redefining something.

    So, no specifics, no argument for his redefinition of terms, just appeal to the opinions of a small set of scholars culminating in an ad hominem. *Sigh.* That’s about the level of n00bish nonsense we’ve come to expect.

    @Doesn’t everything ultimately result because God chose to create? That is, that God ultimately came up with this possible world and instantiated it knowing that every evil that would occur in it would come to pass. So, reductio, Arminianism core tenents entail God is the author of sin.

    Creating a world knowing that people will of themselves choose evil isn’t authoring sin, because the choice to commit iniquity originates in man, not God. It’s a flat-out error to conflate creation of free agents with those agents making their own choices.

    @There is no difference between your view of Libertarian Freedom and that of an Open Theist. You are both libertarians holding probably the principle of alternative possibilities or ultimate sourcehood versions of LFW.

    The Open Theist view of freedom ALSO entails that God can’t know the result of our freedom in choice-making until they occur in time (which runs contrary to Christ predicting Peter’s denial, etc), hence the name *OPEN THEIST.* This is why “you sound kinda of sorta maybe like [insert some heresy]!” is nothing more than an association fallacy.

    @He criticizes me for a made-up definition of aseity but you can pour through all my books containing the topic of aseity and notice that none of them have the made-up distinction of self-imposed dependencies and it’s a distinction from innate independence.

    Because apparently, lack of evidence (in one set of books, no less) is somehow evidence. Cue the facepalms.
    The validity of my distinction is already proven by sound argument in this post: God cannot unmake Abraham due to His faithful nature; God now requires that Abraham exist and is therefore dependent upon Abraham in some sense (albeit, by His own will). QED

    @P1. Either Self-Imposed Dependacies deal with the ontology of God or they do not.
    P2. If they don’t, then they are irrelevant to conversations about the onology of God.
    …Okay, dude, you either think it is relevant to a conversation about the ontology of God or you don’t.

    God is who He is whether He takes any such dependencies or not, so such dependencies as I describe do not alter His quality of existence, nature, etc (ontology).

    @This is like arguing with someone that believes that God is omniscience but has self-imposed ignorance upon himself(like many JW’s believe) but still is completely omniscient.

    I said nothing about self-imposed ignorance, knowing and not-knowing the same things, etc. Yet another obvious association fallacy. I’m starting to think this guy just writes whatever goes through his head without bothering to check if it makes any sense.

    @How can God’s nature not change and him be temporal?

    Because He’s both transcendent and immanent. Also, Christ as a man was inarguably temporal in some respects in that He went through all the changes that normal men do, but His divine existence and nature were fundamentally unaltered.

    @So, as someone once said it to me, “Divine Wisdom” and “God” are co-referential. To speak about God’s omniscience is just to speak about God.

    Just as who God is faithful to isn’t the attribute of faithfulness itself, knowing specifics about us isn’t the attribute of omniscience. The idea that God innately knows everything about us has already perished on the rocks of my deductive proof:

    @where in this article have you done that that I’ve not already responded to and shown that you were wrong?

    Pretty much all of it. Showing that I’m incorrect would require some sort of actual evidence or sound argument, not the sputtering torrent of n00bish fallacies and sophistry he’s presented thus far (see the NAME THAT FALLACY above for a hilarious sampling).

  6. The n00b still can’t figure out he’s lost. Despite his claims and links to non-answers, he has still made no argument for his made-up definition of aseity. We’ll dismantle his latest nonsense with no effort.

    @God isn’t the ultimate arbiter of what is correct on your view.

    When the n00b’s reasoning skills fail him, outright lies are the his weapon of choice.

    @It is the case that other things have that power(our ability to make it true if we choose one way or another).

    Nope, if we wish really hard with all our hearts that God didn’t exist, it won’t make it true. Our choices can only [partially] determine what we do, not what is correct. The n00b is lost in a fog of confusion.

    @Well, determinists think people make their own choices. So, that doesn’t actually distinguish your position from any other position.

    Their choices don’t come from them, they’re totally predetermined externally. Case in point,
    “@In other words, every idea originates with God because man can only think God’s thoughts after him.”

    @I’ve heard no significant metaphysical difference between your view of freedom and an Open Theist.

    Except of course the knowability by God part, which is what defines Open Theism to begin with. [Cue more facepalms]

    @You may assert that God knows the future but only inconsistently.

    [Citation Needed]

    @I just pointed out the irony and hypocrisy of your constant claim that I’ve made up a definition of aseity

    Note that I never said he made it up. I’ve argued this point before with other Calvinists. A redefinition of a word, even if old (such as Calvinists do with ‘Sovereignty’), is still a redefinition. My view of aseity, on the other hand, is no redefinition, but a clarification of its scope via sound argument.

    Concerning my views on God’s self-imposed dependencies, when I pointed out that they don’t affect God’s ontology, he writes:

    @Ah, so they are irrelevant as I’ve pointed out several times.

    My points are irrelevant to a subject I wasn’t addressing? That’s…irrelevant.

    @It’s called an analogy. I may need to learn how to write but this man needs to learn how to read. The keyword is “like”.

    He utterly fails to establish how I’m “like” a JW in any meaningful way. Just more deceitful claptrap from someone who will spout anything to discredit those who disagree, no matter how inane.

    @Notice that Christ changed via his human nature and his divine nature was unaffected. Basically, this just means that each person of the Trinity on your view has an incarnate form.


    @Another nature in which they take to interact with the world. That was what I was stating.

    Colder. Colder.

    @So, God has two natures. A divine and a created. That was all I was trying to get across.

    Nope, not even close. Straw. Man.

    @But think God changes and is unchanging in the same nature is contradictory.

    Already addressed. “While God’s innate attributes themselves do not change…” above. The n00b isn’t reading the argument.

    @This is a flat out rejection of aseity because God’s knowledge is derivative from some external reality.

    Nope, because as I said, “Just as who God is faithful to isn’t the attribute of faithfulness itself, knowing specifics about us isn’t the attribute of omniscience.”
    God doesn’t rely upon us to possess the attribute of omniscience, ergo God doesn’t have an innate dependency upon the world (as opposed to the n00b’s view, in which God innately knows about the world and it therefore must exist for God to be truly omniscient).

    @You’ve been refuted multiple times.

    Strange. Apparently he’s confusing stepping in his own fallacies for refutations. Funny that he doesn’t actually cite any specifics.

  7. @That was because of an argument that God couldn’t be the basis of all truth because certain facts are beyond the control of God(facts regarding human choices).

    God letting us have choices is not “beyond God’s control.” Non-sequitur/straw man.

    @Man Doesn’t think God’s thoughts after him he creates his own ideas.

    Yep, which is why things that don’t come from the Father (per 1 Jn 2:16) can exist.

    @All man’s thoughts are derivative of God. It is only possible to think God’s thoughts after him. How is that even debatable?

    Since man’s thoughts are often evil, such an inane theory would make God the author of sin in defiance of the biblical citation above.

    @But we should that your theory of truth is changed by your rejection of aseity.

    That’s both grammatically atrocious, and entirely unclear.

    @God is subject to exterior forces chance and abstractions.

    If he means *involuntary* subjection, then it wouldn’t be a self-imposed dependency as I argue.

    [concerning me being kind of sort of like an Open Theist]

    @That is more an epistemic point about God’s ability to know them. I’m asking for a relevant difference between their perspectives on the wills of man.

    Kind of like I have little difference of perspective with a Roman Catholic on the Trinity. There’s a reason why ‘association fallacy’ is one of the dumber fallacies out there. He also still utterly fails to establish how I’m “like” a JW in any meaningful way.

    @The conflict is between the idea God knows the future and humans have LFW. You affirm both of those, so why do I need a citation?

    [citation still missing]

    @Hmm let’s quote him:

    I stated it was our objector’s made-up definition, as in what he’s propounding. Nowhere did I state that *he* made it up. He needs to brush up a bit on his reading comprehension.

    @you are in a conversation about God’s ontology and you bring up irrelevant things.

    Our objector appears very confused, since my points weren’t about God’s ontology (except how it’s not affected by self-imposed dependencies).

    @Well, your view makes no sense. God changes and he does not change. That is a surface-level contradiction.

    From someone who practices little more than surface-level reading, this comes as little surprise. Already refuted with my point, “Christ as a man was inarguably temporal in some respects” See above.

    @Right, you prefer the contradiction.

    [Citation needed]

    @It isn’t a straw man to point out how saying The Son changed because he became a human as a model for the trinity’s relationship to time implies they are all incarnate.

    God doesn’t have to become incarnate to deal in time. He manifest Himself in time on numerous occasions in the OT prior to the incarnation.

    @God is timeless and temporal on your view. With no clarification, it is simply contradictory.

    ‘Transcendent’ and ‘immanent.’ Existing outside of time, but capable of manifesting Himself within time. He invokes another strawman.

    @Yes, the true propositions about us aren’t apart of omniscience. Silly

    “Just as who God is faithful to isn’t the attribute of faithfulness itself, knowing specifics about us isn’t the attribute of omniscience.” See above.

    @Several articles refute your silliness.

    [citation needed]

  8. Not much left from our dearest objector. All he’s got now is a parting shot on how the Arminian view of free will is kind of like Open Theism (gasp!) -as long as you discount the central difference of whether God can know our choices beforehand.

    Ah yes, Guilt by Association: you know, kind of like how Christianity teaches that there’s a God, which makes it exactly like Islam if you ignore that whole Jesus being God’s Son detail. Or the way that dog owners are like Hitler (who also owned dogs); they’re totally alike if you can look past the being a Nazi aspect of it.

  9. Lacking any evidence for a decent case, he decides to manufacture some:

    @He doesn’t believe God has foreknowledge. That’s pretty much is his solution to the problem of future tensed propositions and God’s foreknowledge. He seems to present this idea in his article:

    Actually, I don’t entirely agree with the Boethian solution as articulated by Zagzebski (specifically, God not having any temporal properties), nor do I voice total agreement. The scope of my article was whether human choices can have any effect with regards to timeless properties.

    On his being caught committing association fallacy,

    @Well, that’s because they both are indeterminist. There is no significant difference between them regarding the issue of the human will.


    @The obvious reason this is silly is that having a dog doesn’t make you a Christian or a Nazi.

    And his reasoning is just as obviously silly, since believing in free will doesn’t make one an Open Theist any more than believing in God makes one a Muslim (as I pointed out above). Still association fallacy.

  10. @It isn’t my fault that he wasn’t clear in the original article to say he wasn’t affirming the Boethian solution.

    It is his fault for not reading carefully and jumping to conclusions without evidence (hmmm…noticing a pattern here…).

    Still defending his use of the association fallacy,

    @Since my statement is true, then we should note that you should’ve just agreed with that statement from the beginning.

    One can easily read above that I wrote, “Except of course the knowability by God part, which is what defines Open Theism to begin with.” Actually reading would help his interactions immensely.

    Me: “…believing in free will doesn’t make one an Open Theist any more than believing in God makes one a Muslim (as I pointed out above). Still association fallacy.”

    @Does Peter Van Inwagen/Dale Tuggy/Richard Swinburne/ Peter Geach/ William Hasker/ Thomas J. Oord find this silly? These are famous philosophers that make these connections.

    They accept Open Theism, that’s not the same as believing [Free Willer] → [Open Theist], which even our objector finally concedes is false below. Viz,

    @While believing in libertarian freedom doesn’t make one an Open Theist….

    Which is exactly what I said is a silly idea.

    @…it is where your position logically leads.

    [argument missing]

    My position (as I’ve made clear) is that God transcends time such that temporal order is not a limiting factor to what He knows. This leads to Open Theism how exactly?

    If he still stands behind his, “Very Open Theist like” slur above, then…

    * Does that mean a Trinitarian is “very Catholic-like?”
    * Would that make a Monotheist “very Muslim-like?”
    * Is a Determinist “very Richard Dawkins-like?”
    * Is being a Calvinist “very Fred Phelps-like?”

    Protip: That’s why we call it, “Association Fallacy.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s