Indeed. It’s certainly worth asking whether one or the other seems to be more emphasized, especially in the New Testament. But I think some go too far and make it a false dichotomy, or pick one and interpret texts referring to the other in light of the one they believe to be “dominant.” Of course, I’d affirm that God’s sovereignty is greater than human freedom, but it doesn’t have to negate it. Both can be true.
I would mostly agree, but Olson is describing an approach that I’d run across (narrative theology, relational theology) but didn’t really think through its implications for divine sovereignty. The essay (linked above) is worth reading if you haven’t. A couple of points that may further the discussion:
My own view of God’s sovereignty is what I call “relational.” I believe in God’s “relational sovereignty.” What I want to do here, today, is explain what I mean by that and invite you to consider it as an alternative to the view of God’s sovereignty currently enjoying great popularity—the Augustinian-Calvinist view that I call, for lack of any more descriptive term, “divine determinism.” … According to it, whatever happens is planned, ordained and governed by God. Another way of saying that is that God foreordains and renders certain everything that happens without exception.
The second view of God’s sovereignty, the one I plan to expound here, is relational theism . Oord, one of the editors and authors of Relational Theology , defines it this way: “At its core, relational theology affirms two key ideas: 1. God affects creatures in various ways. Instead of being aloof and detached, God is active and involved in relationship with others. God relates to us, and that makes an essential difference. 2. Creatures affect God in various ways. While God’s nature is unchanging, creatures influence the loving and living Creator of the universe. We relate to God, and creation makes a difference to God.”
Divine determinism of any type cannot explain how God is good in any meaningful sense or how people are responsible for the evil they do. Mediating theology, theologies of paradox, cannot explain the consistency of God’s comprehensive, meticulous providence with genuine free will and prayer playing a role in the outworking of God’s plan. Relational sovereignty, which is what I will call the view of God’s sovereignty derived from relational theism, seeks and finds consistency and flexibility.
@ThomasJayOord is not a regular here, but if he should see this and have a free moment, I’d love for him to drop by and explain a little more.
Good discussion. This lead me to read more on Molinism, which is appealing. Evidently William Lane Craig leans that way. Any critiques of Molinism?
I haven’t done much reading on it – I probably should, but from what little I’ve read I like how it distinguishes between God’s knowledge and God’s will.
why is it illogical. It would be illogical to have an all knowing God that you can surprise by what you do tomorrow, but perhaps you will 
1 Like
Molinism is very interesting, seems to present God’s sovereignty and human free will as equal in status. The three different states of foreknowledge was also pretty interesting as well.
it fails were they all fail. Just read Foreknowledge and Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) and realised that they all make the same mistake,they assign their God to the past. My God is already in eternity, so the reason that he knows it all is because he looks back in time and knows what I will do. Thus I can do whatever I want and he knows because he is ahead of me, so his knowledge is not a necessity in my decision making limiting my free will but a consequence of my action.
I love the idea that God has a belief about something. A belief, e.g to think but not know something to be true to be held by an all knowing being is a logical joke 
1 Like
Eternity and infinity are the same term. From infinity to today is infinite or eternal. God does not have to have existed in the future for Him to have existed in eternity. God is a master planner. He planned to send His Son to save the fallen and told this to all the prophets. All of the prophesy for the coming of the Messiah were pointing to His plan, not that He had already seen it.
That God had already seen every direction that each of 100+ billion that have already lived and that He has already experienced every decision that the trillions that remain is illogical. What makes more sense to me, is that God has had “go pros” set up everywhere since the beginning. He can review the footage of everything that ever happened and reveal what He wishes to anyone. He can reply your entire life to you after you die. He revealed to John, the major events of Heaven, including the Fall. The only problem has been in the understanding of multimedia, which is recent concept for humanity - but has existed in Heaven from the beginning.
No, they are not. Eternity necessarily has a time connotation. Infinity does not. E.g., the number of real numbers between 1 and 2 is infinite, or how far a repeating decimal goes, or the number of decimal places in π.
)It would still take you an eternity to go from 1 to 2 in your example.
Or to count them, but at least you are recognizing that eternity is about time and not an infinite number of something else.
If God chose to instantiate this universe, then he chose the individuals in it.
I don’t need my name in lights
What does “Dale Cutler” mean, anyway? Not that I dislike it, but it’s just an arbitrary label, so to speak. I’m eager to know my new one. 
I mean what does it mean to be saved? I mean John 3:16 says that whoever believes in him shall never die but eternal life
Wow. That is a profound question, and I’m a little intimidated by it, because I don’t want to blunder on and mislead or repel. It is also maybe the most important one that can be asked, not unlike "What do you think of Jesus?”
I think it is safe to say that “believes in him in their heart”* is implicit there, based on much other scripture collectively. And we can test our hearts.
It is not merely an intellectual affirmation of ideas or merely finding the ideas attractive. One thing basic is to recognize God for who he is and before God be sorry for our sinfulness and rebellion. We can feel bad about ourselves and our mistakes* – that does not constitute repentance. We need to look to the brightness of Jesus and not just be beating ourselves up. Recognizing his love and sacrifice for someone like ourselves and being thankful beyond words is in there, too.
*We’re not talking about honest mistakes – a politician caught in a sex scandal having cheated on his wife or done something else disgraceful may say “Oops, I made a mistake and a bad choice, but that’s okay – we all make mistakes.” That sort is hardly an honest mistake. We’re talking about our innate rebelliousness and wanting to do what we want to do, period, without regard for God.
A frequently quoted verse in this regard is Romans 3:23 –
I have a somewhat different take on it than some. How can we be as glorious as God? That is something that we cannot attain. What we fall short of is putting him on the throne in our hearts and highly honoring him there as rightful Owner and King.
[We fall short of glorifying him as we ought, pointing to his gloriousness as a sports car aficionado owner of one might praise his Lamborghini, to use a very materialistic metaphor.]
A favorite verse of mine is Hebrews 12:2 –
…who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame
That joy is us(!) if we have been adopted into his family.
What have your feelings have to do with anything? The puppet feels and says what the puppet master decides they will feel and say. Frankly, this sounds a great deal like the great Oz telling us not to look behind the curtain. If it looks like a puppet with the strings all made visible by some set of theological assertions then either they are puppets or the theological assertions are wrong.
That is the logical problem. How can there be a dynamic relationship with something that is not dynamic? How can God change our minds when even we cannot change our minds because it has all been decided already from the beginning of time. You know you have carried this nonsense about absolute foreknowledge too far when even God has no freedom, all because of your insistence on some contradictory idea of omnipotence/omniscience which means God must even know everything God will do at the beginning of time. I wouldn’t even call that creation when God doesn’t actually make any decisions but simply follows a script that has always been written – and you have a god which is as lifeless as his puppets.
But once you allow any freedom or decisions by anyone, the whole argument of absolute foreknowledge begins to unravel. But perhaps more importantly this just doesn’t agree with the story in the Bible where God has regrets and changes His mind about things.
3 Likes
You do not recognize irony when you see it.
Persons are not dynamic? God is not personal?
I see your use of timebound verbiage that declares that you understood absolutely nothing about what I said about our timebound language and thinking, foreknowledge being prominent. Tensed language does.not.apply.to.our.God.who.is.not.restrained.by.time.