Saturday, October 31, 2009

Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?

There is a lot of "biblical archaeology" going around these days. Thanks to Ron Wyatt, there are a whole lot of bogus Old Testament "discoveries" being advocated - for instance, the Ark of Noah, the Ark of the Covenant, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. The guys over at provide a good criticism of these "finds", check out the aforementioned links. While we do have Jericho (exactly as the Bible describes it) and plenty of other archaeology to support the Old Testament, Wyatt hasn't exactly made the stellar Old Testament finds he'd like you to think.

Interestingly, possibly the best historically verified item in all of Judeo-Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It's odd that the most seemingly impossible incident - yet the crux of the entire Christian movement - is also Christianity's best documented occurrence. I would like to post a few links on the subject.

Move over Wyatt, here comes Gary Habermas.

Habermas Debates Tim Callahan
Part 1
Part 2

Here you can watch Habermas destroy skeptic Tim Callahan in a debate on the subject of the resurrection. Tim Callahan wrote a book (The Secret Origins of the Bible) about the supposed pagan origins of Christianity, particularly the resurrection of Christ, but Habermas destroyed him and his book on live TV.

There was also a debate between Antony Flew and Habermas. Habermas cleaned Flew's clock, but unfortunately I cannot find the video on YouTube again. Instead, read this article by Greg Boyd over at Christus Victor Ministries.

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?

Boyd eats John Dominic Crossan (how does that guy keep his job?) for a light snack and moves on to the evidence for Christ's resurrection.

All in all, good stuff. I also recommend The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. I might condense all these points into my own article or video, but until then, this is cool.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Greg Boyd emailed me back! I had written him a letter earlier explaining my logical objection to open theism. To my surprise, his reply contained a lot of well-construed logic. It's obvious that he has thought these things out for a great deal of time. Quotes from my letter are in italic.


Hi Cameron,

I 'm delighted your looking into Open Theism with an open mind (excuse the pun). I want to encourage you to check out the Q and A and Essay section of my website which addresses many of the questions you ask. Given my limited time, I can only touch on your questions here.

But I have a couple problems with it. First off, I can't quite accept the idea of a God bounded by time. Quantum mechanics has shown that there are certain areas of the universe that are not affected by time. I have a difficult time believing that God could be limited by time and sequence, something that parts of His creation are not even limited by.

--> I would question your interpretation of Quantum mechanics. Many if not most Quantum theorists argue that the collapse of the wave packet requires the postulation of irreversible sequence. A great book on this (that touches on other aspects of science and time) is called The Arrow of Time... though I can't off hand recall the author. Also, why think that a being who has a before and after is LIMITED, while a being frozen in an eternal NOW is not? I suggest the frozen model of perfection comes from Plato (and before him, Parmenides) not the Bible. It works with mathematical truths (as in Plato) but not for a personal being (as in the Bible)

Secondly, if God has always existed, and is bounded by time, then an infinite number of seconds must have existed for Him. This seems pretty odd to me. An "infinite number" is really an oxymoron, since a number implies a limited quantity.

--> As Kant showed, the odd thing about time/sequence is that we can neither conceive of it beginning or NOT beginning. Both are equally inconceivable, so the matter must be decided on grounds other than conceivability.

The only problem is, if He is ever at a state when He's outside of time, then He is in all times at once, right? If He were totally outside of time not limited to sequence (as He probably was before the creation of the universe) then all times would be the present. If all times are the present, and the creatures He created are doing things on earth bounded by time, then He would see all the points in time as they happened.

--> yes... and from all eternity.... yet, every verb applied to God in the bible presupposes a "before" and "after"... . The Word BECAME flesh... this suggests first God wasn't incarnate, then he BECAME incarnate.

Then, say, He decides to enter time like open theists (I think) generally claim He did. So, when He creates the universe, He enters time and thus limits Himself. Open theists, if I am correct, say that at that point He also took on the mental characteristics of a time-bounded creature: i.e. not knowing what choices free will creatures would make.

--> note the verbs in these sentences... yet ruled out by the content fo these sentences. eg. WHEN he creates.... He EnTERS... etc.. So was there a "before he creates" and a "before he enters"?
--> also, if the facts of all I shall (certainly) do predate my existence -- for they are, per hypothesis, eternally known to God -- then having God "forget" them doesn't make me free, for the FACTS still precede my choosing them. In 1740 B.C. , for example, all the facts of what I SHALL do existed. I can't alter them. whether God knew these facts in 1740 BC makes no difference. IF they are CERTAIN in 1740 BC, I can no more change the facts of what I WILL do than I can change any fact about 1740 BC. So, it seems to me, I'm utterly fated to do what I shall do. It's much easier to think, and much more biblical to think (in my opinion) that my future is partly open, even to God, for sequence is REAL, even for God, so the future is partly open, even for God.

Hope this helps, Gotta run, keep thinking and loving,

Greg -


I'm very pleased he took time out of his schedule (which is no doubt crazily busy) to respond to my letter. And I think the logic he presents is quite watertight, especially the stuff about time relativity and Plato's version of a "perfect" God (which, as Boyd points out, amounts to more of a perfect little timeless unfeeling cold gem than a real, dynamic, living, supreme Being with true thoughts and true emotions).

The only problem I have is seeing why I should accept his system of open theism versus the simple foreknowledge view I have always taken. Many of his points are quite good, but what it would take for me to change my view seems to be a little more than what I have read from him so far (which is admittedly limited) I think I will read Boyd's book, God of the Possible (after, of course, I finish all of these other good books I have undertaken to read).

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Explanation of Open Theism

A few friends and I had a discussion on open theism today. I wrote in my Facebook status that I was considering open theism again. So Lydia asked me today what open theism was. Pretty soon we had Amy, Joe, Mr. Hoffman, and a whole number of other people in the discussion.

I explained what open theism is but I feel like I didn't do a very good job. So here are the reasons open theism works, and why I don't consider it heretical or consider it to take away God's sovereignty.

Note that I define sovereignty like most people define sovereignty: being in control. Being in control, however, is worlds different from being controlling. When you are babysitting little kids, you are in control, but you are not controlling every move those little kids make. Those who by "sovereignty" mean "exhaustive determinism" really are just redefining the term so that any God who is not exhaustively deterministic is not soverign.

But first of all, I should explain what open theists believe. Open theists essentially hold that possibilities are real. In other words, God knows everything perfectly, and that includes possibilities. As in, at this point in time, a man is making a decision. God knows the man perfectly, and God knows the outcome of the decision perfectly, but knows that there is truly a possibility the man might do either one or the other.

In essence, that means the universe is like a giant Choose Your Own Adventure book. God knows all the possible choices any person could make at any point in time, and He is prepared to respond to every human decision with a counter-move that He sees fit.

"Being infinitely intelligent, God does not have to divide up his intelligence to cover various possibilities the way we do. He can anticipate from all eternity each and every one of any number of possibilities as though it was the only possibility – indeed, as though it absolutely had to occur! All the worry that the God of open theism can only hope for the best and thus can’t be trusted amounts to nothing more than an anthropomorphic denial of God’s infinite intelligence. Not only this, but unlike us, God controls the parameters of all possibilities and perfectly knows all the variables that affect all these possibilities."
-Greg Boyd

Basically, the idea is that God is like a master chess player. He perfectly knows every single move his opponent could possibly make, even though the actual sequence of moves the opponent does make is open to possibility.

As Greg Boyd explains it, if an angel were to come running up to the open theist's God and say, "hey! Guess what, God! I found a blueprint of every single move every single human being is ever going to make over the course of all history!"

God would reply, "why on earth would I need that?! I already know every possible move any human being could ever make! And I have a perfect plan of retaliation for any move they do make!"

God is the infinitely wise chess master. On top of this, God created the rules that govern the chess game we are playing. He may therefore announce a checkmate ages before we are capable of ever imagining how such a prediction could be ensured. Because we with our limited ability to anticipate possibilities cannot see how he makes such a prediction, we might be inclined to suspect that he must somehow foreknow or must have predetermined our future moves in order to make it come to pass. Indeed, we may even suspect that those who believe God doesn’t foreknow or didn’t predetermine our future moves can’t really believe he made this prediction inerrantly! If believing the infinitely wise chess master makes predictions inerrantly is a requirement for belonging to our chess club, we may even lobby to have them removed! But, I submit, all such suspicions are rooted in an anthropomorphic conception of deity. We who have finite intelligence would need to foreknow or predetermine everything about a game of chess to ensure a checkmate this far in advance, but an infinitely intelligent chess player would not.
-Greg Boyd

This is how Boyd and other open theists believe that God can predict the future. He can see everything that is going on and make all that information add up to what is going to happen. A really good economist with an infinitely small fraction of God's intelligence can predict stock market crashes, etc. How much more could God, with completely infinite knowledge of every intricate detail of everything that is going on, predict the future based on what is happening in the present?

And why on earth does Boyd support the open theist view instead of the simple foreknowledge (Arminian) or exhaustive determinist (Calvinist) view? He thinks it is more biblical.

Now, the sheer fact that openness theologians believe that “God changes his mind” can hardly count against their affirmation of the inerrancy of Scripture, for Scripture explicitly teaches this very thing! God inerrantly states he’s intending to do one thing and then, in response to changing circumstances, decides to follow a different course of action. There are 39 times where this is explicitly stated in Scripture, and several hundred times where, on my reckoning, it is implied. So explicit and prominent is this scriptural motif that one might have thought that charges of denying inerrancy would have been raised against Roger Nicole and others who deny this!
-Greg Boyd

In this quote I don't quite think Boyd makes something clear: open theists do not necessarily believe that God changes. They do, however, believe that He changes His plans, or changes His mind, about what He is going to do. But it is not Him who changed - it is people who changed, thus, He changed His plan to reflect that change.

The fact of the matter is that nobody takes everything in the Bible literally and no one takes everything in the Bible to be metaphorical (anthropomorphic or otherwise). We all have to determine what genre a passage fits into – and thus, whether it’s intended to be more literal, or more anthropomorphic. The only claim of Open Theists is that there’s no good exegetical or philosophical reason to take passages that speak about God changing his mind as anthropomorphic. The only reason traditionalists interpret them this way is because admitting God changes his mind conflicts with the traditional view that God exhaustively knows the future from all eternity as a domain of settled facts. If you grant that God really changes his mind, you must acknowledge that the future is partly open.

I would go further and argue that interpreting these passages as anthropomorphic renders their meaning unclear. If God doesn’t actually change his mind, then what do the passages that explicitly declare that he does change his mind mean? Saying they’re anthropomorphic doesn’t help us, for anthropomorphic expressions, if they’re true, must still communicate something accurate about God. Saying God has “a strong arm,” for example, communicates that God is strong – even though he doesn’t literally have arms. But what does it mean to say “God changes his mind” if in fact God doesn’t change his mind? This is simply inaccurate.
-Greg Boyd

So that is why I am considering open theism, and why I do not consider it a heretical system or one that shortchanges God's sovereignty. I doubt we'll ever be able to entirely figure out how God works, but I think we can certainly try to aim for a theology that is closer to what God has revealed in scripture. The only question is, who's theology is closest?

By the way, I still have some reservations against open theism, which I explain in my letter to Greg Boyd. But I don't entirely discount the open theist system.

Friday, October 9, 2009

Calvinism and Church History

I know April, though she holds Arminian convictions of her own, is going to kill me for posting another post about Calvinism. She's just sick of hearing about it, and I can hardly blame her... but I did manage to go five posts without mentioning it! So here we go again.

Makenna sent me a message earlier. In it she mentioned how she had a DVD I should watch - Amazing Grace, on the history and theology of Calvinism. I've been writing an article on the subject of Calvinism's lack of historicity, so I sent her back a few points.

...I don't really think Calvinism is supported by church history, and I'll just give you a few quick reasons why. I'm currently writing an article about this but these are the major points:
  • Augustine of Hippo actually formulated the doctrines of Calvinism, not Calvin. John Calvin merely popularized Augustine's theological system, which is why it is now named after Calvin.
  • Augustine was born in 354 A.D. He formulated and taught "Calvinism" (exhaustive determinism, unconditional election) several hundred years after Jesus and the apostles walked the earth. For comparison, Paul wrote Romans in about 56 A.D., almost 300 years before Augustine was even born.
  • Augustine was a former Gnostic Manichæan. Just to give you a taste of what they taught, Gnosticism held to two gods, a good god and a bad god. In the Gnostic view the bad god created the entire universe.
  • Gnostic Manichæanism held to exhaustive determinism, like Calvinism does today.
  • When he first converted to Christianity, Augustine adopted the mainstream Christian view of libertarian free will and synergism (the generic title of Arminianism, Arminius was not around until the late 1500s), writing a book titled On Free Choice of the Will, in which he opposed the deterministic ideology he once supported.
  • During his later years, Augustine fiercely debated Pelagius, a heretic who claimed that man can achieve moral perfection of his own free will. As Augustine fought Pelagius, he slipped further and further back into his old exhaustively deterministic worldview, yet kept much of his new Christianity. As a result he mixed the doctrines of Manichæan determinism and Christianity, to get Augustinianism, what we now call Calvinism.
  • Augustine could not even read Hebrew or Greek, so his exegesis was limited to his Latin manuscripts, and often flawed.
I recommend reading the following articles:

From the first article, a good quote:

"It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century. The earlier church fathers placed chief emphasis on good works such as faith, repentance, almsgiving, prayers, submission to baptism, etc. They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel...They taught a kind of synergism in which there was
co-operation between grace and free will...[Calvinistic Predestination] was first clearly seen by Augustine,..he went far beyond the earlier theologians [and] taught and unconditional election. (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 365, emphasis added)"

"Although the Calvinist author above intended to say that Augustine discovered a lost teaching of the apostles, his words serve to confirm that (1) unconditional election first emerged in the church about 400 years later than the apostles (2) that unconditional election can be traced to a single influential individual (Augustine), and that (3) unconditional election went “far beyond” the teachings of all those who went before. His
words should also prompt one to ask, “How did free will become the universal teaching of the church for the first 400 years, in the first place?” Indeed, what would it take for “free will” to overcome the alleged lost teaching of unconditional election so that free will became the universal teaching of the church for 400 years? And where is the evidence that something like that even happened?"

I must apologize for the length of this email! It's just odd that you mentioned church history and Calvinism because I had been writing an article (and consequently doing a lot of research) on the subject. Hopefully you will understand my position.

History, God's Attack on Satan

I was reading about the Christus Victor model of the atonement and a thought hit me. Actually, it was a series of thoughts.

Maybe God set up all of human history as a strategic counter-attack against Satan.

Here's what I'm thinking. You know how in the Old Testament, God was pretty violent and pretty Jew-partial? I mean, every hundred years or so He would kill someone who provoked Him. And He reserved most of His liberties for the Jews, His chosen people.

Of course, it's OK for God to be justly violent and unconditionally partial (believe me, check out the pagan gods and you'll be pretty glad you serve Yahweh), but I wonder if He had a strategy to it?

The Pharisees got so caught up in their Jew-partial, punish-the-sinner mindset that God rightly did have (to a degree, but not so much as the Pharisees believed) that they could not see that Jesus really was the Messiah. They expected Him to do the same sorts of things God did in the OT. Kill blasphemers, lead a violent expedition against enemies of Israel - that sort of thing. Actually, most of Israel thought this, as indicated by Luke 9:54.

But I wonder what Satan thought? Maybe he got tricked, just like the Pharisees? Maybe he saw so much of God's OT wrath that he didn't understand God's love when it was manifested in Jesus Christ?

It's like Jesus was undercover. The Father set up all kinds of expectations for what the Son would be like, so that the Son could slip in almost unnoticed.

In other words, the Incarnation is God undercover. Like the Father acted in certain ways and thus other beings (demonic especially) thought that He always acted in those ways, so that Satan never really suspected that Jesus could be God, or even the Messiah.

I doubt Satan would have helped put Christ to death if he had any idea about what would result. I wonder if perhaps that was the point - to keep things just obscure enough so that people who allowed themselves to be enlightened by God could find the truth, yet Satan wouldn't get it?

1 Corinthians 1:27 seems perhaps to have hit this point. Paul's sermon in Acts 17:24-27 seems to say something like this as well.

Just some thoughts. They certainly help to explain the whole disconnect between the OT God of wrath and the NT God of love, although you can really find both Gods in both Testaments if you look a little. I will be reading God at War by Greg Boyd (which I have), then Satan and His Kingdom by Dennis McCallum (which I've ordered), then hopefully God's Strategy in Human History by Forster and Marston (which I plan to order). Maybe these books will help

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Live. Learn. Experience. By April.

This is the first time I have posted something written by anyone other than myself on my blog. However, it is completely warranted. This is an essay written by my good friend April.

I almost wonder if she wrote this essay for me and about me. I am the person of the first few lines... a kid studying to be a pastor, so wrapped up in theology, doctrine, and who's right and who's wrong that I forget what pastors do. They help people. They teach people. They get out and they live for God. They Live Out Loud - ironically, that's the title of April's blog.

I've always been the doctrinal guy, but she's always seen the value of living the faith instead. I've always been the one who's wrapped up in first-century manuscripts, she's always been the one wrapped up in twenty-first century relationships.

So I guess I need to take to heart a lot of the values of April. I don't need to forfeit my doctrinal study. But at the end of the day, I need to realize what's most important. Jesus did. He could quote the scriptures forward and backward, sure, but He knew that that those scriptures were meant to be lived out.

Here is April's essay. April, if you're reading this, I just want to say thanks for reminding me of things I all too easily forget.


Live. Learn. Experience.

Let’s say I wanted to learn all I possibly could about Christianity. I could watch documentaries, learn theory and doctrine, and of course study the Bible. I could be considered a very religious person because I know so much about God. But as many Christians know, truly knowing God is different than knowing about God. You have to experience God’s love and Christ’s forgiveness to really know what it means. Just as one cannot fully understand what it means to lose a friend, until he has lost-- what it means to face a fear, until he has faced it-- or what it means to love, until he has loved. It is said by many about life “live and learn.”

It is also said, “Learn from your mistakes.” Unfortunately, some things have to be learned the hard way, because after discovering what not to do, you usually learn how to do it the right way too. Like the baby who cannot walk yet, all she knows is what she sees from watching others. But no matter how much the baby studies other people’s walking, she will always fall down the first time. It may take many tries before she can get anywhere on her two feet. But if she doesn’t give up, she will soon learn to walk. Because we are humans, we will fall sometimes, but we were created to learn from our mistakes, and to learn from experience, good or bad.

In Francis Bacon’s “Of Studies” he says, “[studies] perfect nature, and are perfected by experience: for natural abilities are like natural plants, that need proyning, by study; and studies themselves do give forth directions too much at large, except they be bounded in by experience.” In modern English you could say something like this, “People have natural abilities, and they are perfected by experience, like plants that need pruning. Much can be learned from studies, but true knowledge comes through experience.”

Another way to learn is to take what you already know and strive towards improvement. In my years of playing flute I’ve found that practice makes (almost) perfect; however, just sitting in the band room wasn’t what improved my skills, no. I think what most helped me was going to Solo and Ensemble contest, which meant my abilities would be seriously tested. It’s never easy stepping up to a new level and having to make your work as best as it possibly can be. Performing in this contest meant I would play in front of a judge and a small audience, and I could also listen to others do the same. Experience. It’s what can polish natural ability, and inspire you to keep pushing forward.

Because we are humans we learn something new every day; because we live our life, we grow from experience. Today, we need to open up our minds to new information, a new perspective, and new experiences. For every experience there is the chance of not only knowing more than before, but being more than before. Whether it be mistakes or successes, experience and the memory of those experiences make us who we are today.

Friday, October 2, 2009

How to Salvage Your Broken Faith

We've all been there. You know the points in your walk with God where you're just left dry spiritually, drowning in the depths of mediocrity. All the passion, all the power in your faith has been sucked out of you. A part of you wants it all back so bad, but another part doesn't even care.

I have been in spiritual ruts like that multiple times in my life. In fact, I'm just coming out of one. I'd just like to share a few thoughts of mine on the subject.

I hit such a dry spot about a year ago. I didn't understand what was happening to me. I had been so filled with the spirit of God, so in love with Jesus, so in touch with spirituality. But then it seemed to just leave. I wasn't on the straight and narrow path anymore. I felt lost in the woods. After a long time of depression, I started searching.

Naturally, as a 21st century kid, the first place I searched was online. I looked up how to restore your relationship with God, how to return to a faith you feel has fallen apart.

I found two different articles I liked a lot. But they said the exact opposite thing!

The first article said that to get back to a relationship with God that you've lost, you need to start at the beginning again. You need to go back to the way you were when you were first converted: humble, and lost, and broken. You need to realize anew that you can't make it on your own, you need to submit to Christ afresh. The beginning is the place where you walked by humble, childlike faith. And back to the beginning you must go.

The other was a sermon by Charles Spurgeon. You've probably noticed that I don't agree with a lot of Spurgeon's theology, but I think he was a great man of God, one who truly walked by faith and had a great deal of valuable insight. Spurgeon said that to get back to a relationship with God that you lost, you must pick it up where you left off. If you forsook reading scripture and so your faith crumbled, then back to the scriptures you must go to find God again. If you forsook your prayer life and so your faith crumbled, then back down on your knees you must go to find God again.

These two articles said the exact opposite thing, yet I think they are both right. When we are at a spiritual low, we must use Spurgeon's method in practice. We must pick up the spiritual discipline we forsook in order to move on again. But to come back to God with our heart, we must go back to the beginning. We must go back to that humble state we were in before we were "great Christians", to let the good news break us again, humble us again, forgive us again.

I was reading Simply Jesus and You by Joseph Stowell a while ago. It is an excellent book full of passion and insight. Joseph Stowell quoted Micah 6, and it just broke me.

Micah 6:6
With what shall I come before Yahweh
and bow down before the exalted God?
Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings,
with calves a year old?

Do you feel the frustration in the text? The guy writing is just saying, "all right, what is going to be good enough for me to connect with God? What do I have to do to get it all back?"

Just like I am.

Micah 6:7
Will Yahweh be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

He goes on... what is going to be good enough? Can I give God thousands of my possessions for His forgiveness? Should I give Him my firstborn kid?

Micah 6:8
He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does Yahweh require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.

And there's the answer. Act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God. We can think we have it all figured out, we can put everything into neat little formulas, but in the end, we just have to drop it all and walk humbly with God.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

My Letter To Greg Boyd

This is my letter to Greg Boyd. I have been seriously considering his open theism position, but I have a few logical qualms with it. Hopefully, he will respond with some good insight.


Hey Rev. Boyd,
I have been looking into the possibility of open theism. Right now I'm sort of at a crossroads because I have always accepted the infinite foreknowledge view of God. I'm thinking that the openness position is fairly solid scripturally (rarely do its opponents use scripture to argue their points) and accounts better for the ridiculous complexity of everything.
But I have a couple problems with it. First off, I can't quite accept the idea of a God bounded by time. Quantum mechanics has shown that there are certain areas of the universe that are not affected by time. I have a difficult time believing that God could be limited by time and sequence, something that parts of His creation are not even limited by.
Secondly, if God has always existed, and is bounded by time, then an infinite number of seconds must have existed for Him. This seems pretty odd to me. An "infinite number" is really an oxymoron, since a number implies a limited quantity.
All in all I'm thinking God has to be outside of time and not limited by time. But to work sequentially, He has to limit Himself to time in some way. Otherwise He would never be able to talk to Moses on Mount Sinai, due to the fact that Moses is a time-bounded creature.
The only problem is, if He is ever at a state when He's outside of time, then He is in all times at once, right? If He were totally outside of time not limited to sequence (as He probably was before the creation of the universe) then all times would be the present. If all times are the present, and the creatures He created are doing things on earth bounded by time, then He would see all the points in time as they happened.
For instance, He would see the time when I started writing this letter and the time I finished, and all the times in between. My action, to write this letter, was free, but God could still see each instant of time in which I did in fact write the letter. So He sees all of the results of my free will decision, whether or not He sees the free will decision itself.
Then, say, He decides to enter time like open theists (I think) generally claim He did. So, when He creates the universe, He enters time and thus limits Himself. Open theists, if I am correct, say that at that point He also took on the mental characteristics of a time-bounded creature: i.e. not knowing what choices free will creatures would make.
So, essentially, He would have to forget all the stuff He already knew. And my point is, if He is outside of time at any point, that means that He can foreknow the free will decision of any creature judging by the results, without affecting the creature's free will.
Hopefully you see what I'm getting at. If you see any flaws in my logic, let me know. I'm very interested in your position and it has gotten me to think in a lot of ways I have not before. But I'm just trying to reason this out and it's not adding up right.
Thanks, and keep up the good work.
In Christ,
-Cameron Versluis