Simply presenting evidence isn't enough.
You have to show that the evidence supports your position.
You have yet to do so.
Straw man.
You've been corrected on this repeatedly.
Attributing an argument to me that I haven't made doesn't refute anything I've said.
Yes, God has foreknowledge.
What you're supposed to be establishing is
exhaustive, infallible foreknowledge of every future free choice.
Those are not the same proposition.
But only the Father knows it. Not the Son.
At minimum, that does nothing to establish exhaustive infallible foreknowledge.
And it is perfectly consistent with the date and hour being within the Father's exclusive prerogative to set.
Compare Acts 1:7:
And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 1:7&version=NKJV
Yes, God planned beforehand an event that He intends to bring about at a particular time.
That does not mean that everything that happens was known by God.
That does not mean that everything that happens in the future is exhaustively and infallibly known as already-settled history.
Once again:
God determining a particular future event
does not entail:
every future free choice is eternally settled.
Again, this describes something God intends to bring about.
Christ returning, judging, and reigning are not examples of God passively observing an eternally prerecorded future free choice.
They're things
God Himself is going to do.
How does that establish exhaustive infallible foreknowledge of every future free choice? (Hint: It doesn't.)
Neither.
There's nothing ad hoc about distinguishing between:
an event God has determined to bring about
and
an unsettled free choice made by a creature.
Those are objectively different categories.
Calling the distinction "selective literalism" doesn't make it disappear.
Yes.
An
extrapolation.
And an invalid one.
Even if God infallibly knows that this particular group will not repent under those circumstances, that establishes knowledge of that particular outcome.
It does not establish exhaustive infallible foreknowledge of
every future free choice.
You keep confusing examples with exhaustiveness.
No.
You're treating John's description of what he saw in a prophetic vision as though John were writing a historical report after the events had already occurred.
He wasn't.
John is narrating what he was shown in a vision concerning future events.
And Jeremiah 18 establishes the general principle that God's declared future dealings with men can depend upon how men respond.
The fact that Revelation portrays a group ultimately not repenting does not somehow establish that their non-repentance had been an immutable truth value from eternity past.
That's the additional proposition you still haven't proved.
No, it doesn't.
Jesus accurately predicting a particular future event does not establish exhaustive infallible foreknowledge of every future free choice.
That's the same invalid inference yet again.
And John 13:19 is immediately connected to a particular betrayal that was already underway.
You're asking the question too late in the sequence.
By the Last Supper, Judas had already chosen to betray Christ.
He had already gone to the chief priests and agreed to betray Him.
Matthew 26:14-16:
Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?” And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver. So from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 26:14-16&version=NKJV
Likewise Luke 22:3-6 records Judas going to the chief priests and agreeing to betray Christ before the supper.
So Jesus knowing at the supper that Judas was going to betray Him does not require exhaustive infallible foreknowledge of an eternally unsettled choice.
Judas had already made the choice.
Then Satan entered him, and Christ told him:
"What you do, do quickly."
You're using knowledge of a choice already made as evidence for exhaustive foreknowledge of choices that haven't been made.
That doesn't work.
Now,
could Judas have repented before betraying Jesus? YES!
Was Judas likely to do so? No. He was committed to his betrayal.
Straw man again.
Open Theism does not teach that every prophecy is merely a "maybe."
Some future events are settled because God has determined to bring them about.
Some predictions concern sufficiently established circumstances, intentions, or character.
Some prophecies are conditional.
The future can contain both settled and unsettled elements.
That's the distinction you keep refusing to engage.
And we're back to guilt by association and assertion instead of argument.
Exactly.
You've admitted that you don't know.
Yet you keep insisting that the verse establishes your conclusion.
It doesn't.
Correct!
It's not about some special causal property of God.
It's a logical problem with
infallible foreknowledge itself.
If my neighbor infallibly knows today that tomorrow I will choose A, then tomorrow I cannot choose not-A without making my neighbor's supposedly infallible knowledge false.
The identity of the knower is irrelevant.
You've just reinforced the point I've been making.
The issue is
necessity, not causation.
Of course Revelation is true. Nobody said otherwise.
And God's promise to Abraham is another example of something
God Himself promised to accomplish.
God can infallibly know that He will fulfill His own promise because He is capable of fulfilling His own promise.
That does not establish exhaustive infallible foreknowledge of every future free choice made by everyone involved along the way.
No.
I believe Revelation.
I don't believe the extra proposition you're adding to Revelation.
Those aren't the same thing.
The text can truthfully portray what God intends, predicts, or reveals about the future without thereby teaching that every future free choice already exists as an immutable settled fact.
You still haven't shown otherwise.
Again, saying the evidence proves exhaustive infallible foreknowledge doesn't make it so.
That's what you're supposed to demonstrate.
And repeating the Word of Faith comparison still isn't an argument.
I'm not "skipping" anything.
Read what the verse actually says.
"Whom He foreknew."
The object of "foreknew" is
people.
It does not say:
"whose every future free choice He exhaustively and infallibly foreknew."
Even granting foreknowledge in the strongest temporal sense you want to give it, Romans 8:29 still does not establish exhaustive foreknowledge of every future fact.
You're adding that conclusion yourself.
Yes.
God had a purpose
in Christ before the foundation of the world.
Again:
How does that establish exhaustive infallible foreknowledge of every future free choice?
It doesn't.
God having a prior purpose is not the same thing as every future creaturely decision being eternally settled.
Answered repeatedly.
Also, Revelation 9:22 doesn't exist. Revelation 9 ends at verse 21. Presumably you mean Revelation 9:21?
Either way, repeating "did not repent" yet again does not turn a particular prophetic outcome into exhaustive infallible foreknowledge of every future free choice.
Nobody is adding to or taking away from Revelation.
Disagreeing with
your interpretation of Revelation is not taking away from Revelation.
In fact, you're the one repeatedly adding this proposition to the text:
"Therefore God exhaustively and infallibly foreknows every future free choice."
The verses you keep quoting don't say that.
You infer it.
So if you want to establish your position, stop merely quoting passages that describe particular future events and demonstrate the inference.
That's the part you still haven't done.
