bad example God knew .
(Genesis 18:17) And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;
This verse literally proves my position.
This verse literally supports my position.
God asks, “Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?”
He is deliberating about His own future choice. He is deciding whether He should tell Abraham what He is about to do. He considers Abraham’s calling and then decides to reveal it to him.
The verse presents God considering what He should do before making the decision.
you acknowledge the words "did not repent" but not what they mean
False.
I'm exaining to you what they mean. You ignoring it doesn't make that explanation go away.
The words occur within a prophetic vision. Therefore, they describe what happens within the vision: the men could repent, but they freely choose not to repent.
Writing a prophetic vision down does not transform it into settled future history.
no
God's belief does not transfer to their ability to repent
God knows their free choice, they have the ability
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
You claim that God infallibly knows they will not repent, so their repentance cannot actually occur. You then claim that they nevertheless retain the ability to repent.
Those claims are incompatible.
foreknowledge ≠ causation
Yes. We agree.
Foreknowledge does not cause the event.
But if God infallibly knows that a person will perform an action, and that knowledge cannot be false, then the person cannot perform the alternative instead.
If the alternative is impossible, then the person does not have a genuine choice between alternatives.
If the person cannot choose otherwise, then the action is not freely chosen in the libertarian sense under discussion.
Causation is not the issue. Possibility is.
You continue to commit the modal fallacy and treat foreknowledge as if it were causation
Saying it doesn't make it so.
I have repeatedly distinguished necessity from causation. You keep responding to an argument I am not making.
You are trying to maintain both claims. They cannot both be true.
foreknowledge ≠ causation , foreknowledge not a force
Yes, we agree.
modal fallacy open theism seeks to make God's foreknowledge the cause when it is just knowledge
You still have not demonstrated a modal fallacy, so I reject your claim.
And I already agree that foreknowledge is not a cause.
The problem is that infallible know
ledge of one future outcome excludes every contrary outcome. That is a question of possibility, not causation.
brave a i :
Divine Certainty (De Dicto): It is necessarily true that God’s foreknowledge is infallible. If God sees that humanity will not repent, it is impossible for Him to be wrong. This is a necessity of the proposition.
Human Contingency (De Re): The refusal to repent in Revelation 9:20-21 is not de re necessary. The individuals possessed the ability to do otherwise (the power of contrary choice). They could have repented, but they would not. God’s knowledge simply reflects the certainty of their free choice without causing it.
This begs the question.
It begins by assuming “divine certainty,” meaning that God infallibly knows these men will not repent. Whether God possesses that kind of knowledge about unsettled future choices is precisely what is being disputed.
The quotation does not establish divine certainty. It assumes divine certainty and then declares that the men somehow retain the power of contrary choice.
“They could have repented, but they would not” does not resolve the contradiction.
“Could” concerns possibility.
“Might” concerns probability.
My position is that, within the vision, they could repent. Repentance remains genuinely possible. Given their character and the circumstances, however, they probably will not repent. God is showing the most likely course the future will take if the relevant circumstances do not change.
Your position makes repentance impossible while continuing to call it possible.
Another fallacy you don't seem to know the meaning of.
are you're saying it doesn't mean what it says?
I am saying it means exactly what it says within the context in which it appears.
You are ignoring that context.
you want to change "they did not repent" into "they might repent"
No.
Within the vision, they did not repent.
They could have repented, but freely chose not to.
The vision itself represents what might happen in the actual future if circumstances continue along their present course.
You keep conflating what the men could do within the vision with whether the events portrayed in the vision must occur in actual history.
No.
God knew their choice and wrote it down for us to read ,
No. That is the claim you have assumed but have not proven.
God showed John the general future end of the world that God Himself would bring about, and He had John write the vision down.
The nitty gritty details may, and probably will change. Chariots, for example, are unlikely to be the literal instruments used. The men described are not named individuals whose personal futures are being recorded. They are generic representatives of the people who will eventually occupy those positions.
Notice that the passage describes groups of men. The men collectively do not repent.
One thing that you should learn, W2G, is that individual men are hard to predict, but groups of people are extremely easy to predict, even for men, let alone God Himself.
God can know with overwhelming confidence how a population will respond without every individual choice being a settled future fact.
do you deny " they did not repent "
No. Within the vision, they did not repent.
and make it they might repent ?
No. You are conflating two different statements.
Within the vision, they could repent but did not.
The vision shows what might happen in actual history, given the circumstances that existed when the vision was given.
are you claiming God can't possibly know what he claims to know or God is mistaken here ?
Neither.
I have established that God’s knowledge of the future is not an exhaustive list of settled future facts.
You are attributing knowledge to God that He does not claim to possess.
If the future unfolds differently from what was portrayed in the vision, God was not mistaken. The vision showed where history was most likely headed if the relevant circumstances did not change.
God designed men who can meaningfully affect the course of history. Their choices can change circumstances, alter God’s plans, and produce outcomes different from those that were previously expected or threatened.
(Revelation 9:20-21) [20] And the rest of the men who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and golden, and silver, and bronze, and stone, and wooden idols (which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk). [21] And they did not repent of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.
Yes. Within the prophetic vision, they did not repent.
Repeating the passage does not establish that the vision is an infallible recording of settled future history. That is the point you continue to assume and have yet to prove.
