The Open Theism and Free Will

This paper leave behind dig into the issues of open theism, free will, pain and suffering, and suppliant from the perspective of Boyd's entirelyow and informed as well by Ware's book to baffle at a view that analyzes their differences and incorporates rough of both.

Boyd (125) asserts that beau ideal is reflect by two vari able-bodieds in terms of what He is able to do or not do in any particular situation. The first is that "the populace in which agents relate must be regular, predictable and orderly," so "God can't suspend the laws of genius whenever they competency work against us" (Boyd 125). The second is that "agents must give irrevocable freedom" in that "God simply can't upset free wills whenever they might conflict with his will" (Boyd 125). To clarify his prognosticate further, Boyd (130) draws an illustration from Paul Billheimer, who suggests that "God's will is like a furrow check that must be cosigned in order to be validated" and that "We the church are the cosigning party, and prayer is our signing." While it is truthful that God has created a world designed to be regular, predictable, and orderly, it is surely not true that He is incapable of suspending the laws of nature whenever they might work against us. Boyd has apparently forgotten the many instances in the rule book when God has, in fact, deliberately sus

Ware (32) points out that "prop ints of open theism...object to the notion that the divine omniscience includes across-the-board knowledge of the future," as they feel that "the doctrine that God knows exclusively that can be known or is knowable...must be defined...as God's comp knowledge of the past and present only." He explains that open theism asserts that all of the future that includes future free choices and actions is unknowable by God (Ware 32). To put this another way, open theism is "the belief that God does not exercise meticulous control of the universe but leaves it 'open' for humans to make significant choices (free will) that impact their relationships with God and others" ("Open Theism").

When it comes to prayer, some of Boyd's ideas make sense and others do not. He acknowledges that "Scripture consistently depicts prayer as significantly influencing God's interaction with us" (126), noting that Moses' prayer changed the plan of God in Exodus 32:10-34 (41). In addition, he accurately describes the "essence of prayer" as one of "align[ing] our will with the Father's will so that his rule is established on earth as it is in heaven (Mt 6:10)" (Boyd 130). Boyd (130) truly points out that "God decided to create a world in which agents really have say-so on a spiritual level and really have the power to regularise him and what comes to pass. Therefore, things really hang on whether or not God's raft pray" (Boyd 131). It is here that Boyd begins to depart erst again from Scripture, however, and shift off toward the ditch. He then says, "We should pray for protection when we drive, and this will render it more likely that we won't be harmed. Still, so unyielding as other drivers can make morally trusty (or irresponsible) choices that affect others, our complete safety can't be guaranteed" (Boyd 141). He has once again returned to the impotent God and has now added the believer's impotent prayer to the mix. "Prayer affects e
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.