Honest struggles on God’s omniscience.

[way 2 go]

No one said it was.

open theism tries to make foreknowledge a force

Then their choice could not be infallibly known by God beforehand as a settled fact before they made it.

Correct.

Which means they could not have done otherwise. And if they could not have done otherwise, then their non-repentance was not a genuine choice. It was simply them acting out a script.

You are giving them an excuse before God:

“But why am I being held accountable for not repenting if I could not have done otherwise?”

And under your doctrine, that excuse would be valid.


Correct.

That has been the argument all along.

The issue is necessity, not force.

Thus:



It is illogical to say that "their own will is the real cause of the action" if your doctrine removes the very thing that makes a will a will. Here's why:

Again, a will is the ability to choose.

If it's not free, it's not a will. Period.

If their “choice” is infallibly foreknown before they exist, then there is no genuine alternative available to them. They cannot repent without making God’s foreknowledge false.

So their so-called choice is not actually a choice. It is merely the outworking of necessity.

Either they have a will and can genuinely do otherwise, in which case their choice cannot be infallibly foreknown as settled beforehand, or their choice is infallibly foreknown as settled beforehand, in which case they cannot genuinely do otherwise.

the necessity is logical, not causal , foreknowledge is not a force

the core philosophical error is modal fallacy
God knows their choice of they did not repent they don't lack choice
choice is not eliminated by God's foreknowledge

Just because God is right does not take away the ability to repent

(Revelation of John 16:11) and they blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores; and they repented not of their works.

Revelation 4 and 9 prove prophecy.

They do not prove exhaustive foreknowledge of every future free choice.

You keep moving from “God can reveal future events” to “therefore God exhaustively foreknows every future free choice.” That does not follow.

the book of Daniel and Revelation prove infallible foreknowledge

open theist irrationally says God knows all that is knowable then deny it
God knew sodom was evil but open theist say God didn't know sodom was evil

Calling it anthropomorphic does not make it so.

Calling it anthropomorphic is biblically consistent

(I Samuel 15:11) I repent that I made Saul reign as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and he has not risen to do my words. And Samuel was angry, and he cried to Jehovah all night.
(I Samuel 15:29) And also the Glory of Israel will not lie nor repent, for He is not a man that He should repent.

Genesis 22 says God tested Abraham, Abraham obeyed, and then God said:

“Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

Your doctrine requires “Now I know” to mean “I already eternally knew before Abraham existed.”

That is not interpretation. That is reversal.

God was not testing his own faith

(Genesis 22:1) And it happened after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, Abraham! And he said, Behold me.

 

[JudgeRightly]

open theism tries to make foreknowledge a force

No it doesn't.

the necessity is logical, not causal ,

Yes, thats what we said to you.

Does Polly want a cracker now?

foreknowledge is not a force

Again, no one said it was.

the core philosophical error is modal fallacy
God knows their choice of they did not repent they don't lack choice

Calling it a modal fallacy does not make it one.

Which premise are you rejecting?

If God infallibly foreknew before they existed that they would not repent, could they repent?

If yes, then God's foreknowledge could be false.

If no, then they could not do otherwise.

choice is not eliminated by God's foreknowledge

It is if His knowledge of future choices is infallible.

Just because God is right does not take away the ability to repent

Infallible doesn't mean "right."

It means "without error."

If God can be wrong, then His knowledge is not infallible.

If God cannot be wrong, then they cannot repent without making His knowledge false.

(Revelation of John 16:11) and they blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores; and they repented not of their works.

I believe the verse.

It says they did not repent.

It does not say their non-repentance was exhaustively and infallibly settled before they existed.

the book of Daniel and Revelation prove infallible foreknowledge

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Prophecy proves prophecy. It does not prove exhaustive foreknowledge of every future free choice.

open theist irrationally says God knows all that is knowable then deny it

I deny that future free choices are already settled facts before they are made.

That is not irrational. That is the point in dispute.

God knew sodom was evil but open theist say God didn't know sodom was evil

Knowing THAT Sodomites are evil is different than knowing HOW they are evil.

Genesis 13 says Sodom was wicked generally.

Genesis 18 concerns a specific outcry that God says He will investigate: “I will go down now and see... and if not, I will know.”

You keep flattening those into the same claim.

Calling it anthropomorphic is biblically consistent

Calling it anthropomorphic does not make it so.

(I Samuel 15:11) I repent that I made Saul reign as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and he has not risen to do my words. And Samuel was angry, and he cried to Jehovah all night.
(I Samuel 15:29) And also the Glory of Israel will not lie nor repent, for He is not a man that He should repent.

This does not help you.

1 Samuel 15:11 says God repented concerning Saul.

1 Samuel 15:29 says God is not a man that He should lie or repent.

The point is not that verse 11 is fake. The point is that God does not repent the way man repents. God is not fickle, deceptive, ignorant, or unreliable like man.

God's repentance is not man's repentance.

That does not make Genesis 22:12 mean the opposite of what it says.

God was not testing his own faith

(Genesis 22:1) And it happened after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, Abraham! And he said, Behold me.

No one said He was.

God tested Abraham.

Abraham obeyed.

Then God said, “Now I know.”

Your doctrine requires “Now I know” to mean “I already knew.”

That is not interpretation. That is reversal.

 

[Nick M]

open theism tries to make foreknowledge a force

It is a description in our language on how God describes himself in terms of nature and attributes as it relates to the natural world.

 

[Nick M]

God tested Abraham.

Abraham obeyed.

Then God said, “Now I know.”

Your doctrine requires “Now I know” to mean “I already knew.”

That is not interpretation. That is reversal.

Then there is this doozy about the sin of Judah, in the mold of Planned Parenthood. It never entered into his mind they could do such a thing.

4 “Because they have forsaken Me and made this an alien place, because they have burned incense in it to other gods whom neither they, their fathers, nor the kings of Judah have known, and have filled this place with the blood of the innocents 5 (they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind),