Was my prediction in post #301, which you fulfilled in #305 and I pointed out in #306, “exhaustive divine foreknowledge”?
No.
It was an accurate prediction based upon your established pattern of behavior. You remained free to prove me wrong by addressing the arguments instead of repeating yourself.
A prediction does not become exhaustive divine foreknowledge merely because it comes true.
I can guarantee you I don't possess the kind of knowledge you think God has. Yet somehow I knew that you would do exactly what I said you would do, and that is exactly what you have now done.
God can accurately predict particular events because:
1. He knows what He Himself intends to accomplish.
2. He can arrange circumstances and intervene to secure an outcome.
3. He understands people and institutions well enough to predict their behavior with extraordinary accuracy.
The crucifixion was something God intended to accomplish, not an event He passively watched approaching.
Even if every detail you listed was infallibly guaranteed, that would establish God’s knowledge, intention, or control concerning those particular events.
It would not establish exhaustive infallible foreknowledge of every future free choice made by everyone.
Your inference is:
- God accurately predicted and guaranteed particular events.
- Therefore, God infallibly knows every future free choice.
That conclusion does not follow.
See #278, Argument 17.
God can determine that certain events must take place because He has decided to bring them about.
That does not establish that every detail in every prophetic vision is an immutable transcript of future history, or that every voluntary response portrayed within it was unavoidable.
Necessity arising from God’s settled intention does not require the entire future to be a completed script.
Nor does it mean that God cannot later change His mind if circumstances change.
See #278, Arguments 15-17.
Already answered.
See #283 and #278, Arguments 9, 10, and 23.
You continue repeating this comparison without identifying an error in the answer.
The unrepentant men are responsible for their refusal to repent.
That does not answer the argument.
If God infallibly knows that they will not repent, then His knowledge cannot be false. Therefore, they cannot repent.
So answer the relevant question:
Could they repent without making God’s infallible knowledge false?
If not, repentance was not genuinely possible.
See #278, Arguments 18-20.
No. Foreknowledge just means "something known in advance."
Of course Open Theists believe God can know something beforehand.
What Open Theists reject is exhaustive infallible foreknowledge of future free choices.
That does not mean God knows nothing about the future.
God knows what He intends to do, what He has determined to accomplish, what is certain because of His own actions, and what people are likely to do based upon their character and circumstances.
You keep treating “foreknowledge” and “exhaustive infallible foreknowledge of every future free choice” as interchangeable.
They are not.
No causal mechanism is required.
The impossibility follows directly from the alleged infallibility of the knowledge:
1. God infallibly knows that they will not repent.
2. God’s infallible knowledge cannot be false.
3. Therefore, they cannot repent.
That argument says nothing about God causing their refusal.
You continue changing the subject from whether repentance was possible to who caused the unrepentance.
See #278, Arguments 18-20.
Already answered.
See #278, Arguments 15-17 and 23.
See #293 and #278, Arguments 6 and 23.
Yes.
God warns men because He wants them to repent and avoid judgment.
In fact, God hopes that His prophecies of judgment will fail, because those prophecies are warnings intended to produce repentance so that the threatened judgment will not need to occur.
That only makes sense if change is genuinely possible.
The many passages collected here establish this broader biblical pattern:
opentheism.org
God is not seeking to become morally better. His righteous character does not change.
But yes, Scripture repeatedly shows God seeking a change in His own intended course of action.
The many passages collected here show God relenting, repenting, changing what He intends to do, expecting one outcome and receiving another, and responding to repentance, intercession, and changing circumstances:
opentheism.org
Jeremiah 26:3 is one especially clear example:
“Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may relent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings.”
God had purposed to bring calamity upon them.
He sent Jeremiah because He hoped they would repent, so that He could relent from what He had purposed to do.
So yes, God sometimes seeks a change in His intended course of action.
That is not moral instability. God changes what He intends to do because He remains perfectly consistent in His righteous and relational character.
See #278, Arguments 1-5.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Scripture does not say that God infallibly knows every future choice made by every individual. Many passages appealed to as foreknowledge concern nations, kingdoms, peoples, or other groups, whose behavior is often highly predictable from their character, culture, incentives, and established patterns. Even men can accurately predict groups. Their Creator can do so far more accurately.
Scripture also contains predictions about particular individuals, but those establish only that God can accurately predict, arrange, or determine particular outcomes. They do not establish that He infallibly knows every future free choice everyone will ever make. Your conclusion is broader than your evidence.
Well, you fit this passage almost perfectly, then.
He answered and said to them,
“Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? . . . Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,And honor Me with their lips,But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me,Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. ’ ”
He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
www.biblegateway.com
What you love is your doctrine that conforms God into an idol that you can claim to love.
But it isn't about the God of the Bible.
In context, God would not lie or reverse the blessing He had pronounced merely because Balak wanted Israel cursed.
The passage teaches God’s truthfulness and faithfulness in carrying out what He had declared. It does not say that God never changes an intended course of action in response to repentance or intercession.
“For I am the LORD, I do not change;
Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.”
The verse itself identifies the relevant constancy. God remains faithful to His identity, character, and covenant, which is why Israel had not been consumed.
It does not say that God never changes His intentions or actions.
This concerns God’s settled judgment that Saul would lose the kingdom. God would not lie or reverse that judgment like a fickle man.
The same chapter says twice that God regretted making Saul king, in verses 11 and 35.
Therefore, verse 29 cannot mean that God never changes His mind or regrets an action in any sense. Your interpretation would make the chapter contradict itself.
Jesus Christ remains the same person, with the same righteous character and faithfulness, yesterday, today, and forever.
The verse does not say that Jesus never changes His actions, experiences, intentions, or relationships. Scripture plainly records Him growing, acting, responding, suffering, and entering new relationships with people.
The context identifies God as the unwavering source of good gifts, without the moral fickleness or darkness found in creation.
It teaches the constancy of God’s goodness, not that He never responds differently when people and circumstances change.
All five passages concern God’s faithful and unchanging character. None says that God never changes what He intends to do.
