Knowledge might not DO anything, but for a causative event to be known, the causative agent must be in existence, or the causative agent is not really causing anything. So, you like vanilla, and God knew you would like vanilla from the foundation of the earth. Did you "decide" to like vanilla once you were born and had the opportunity to try it and other flavors? No. God knew because God caused (or possibly someone else caused it who was alive when God first knew). This is in keeping with scripture.
What is in keeping with scriptures? You are making an assertion: "If it was known, it is determined!" You haven't shown the smoking gun, just evidence atf.
[Isa 46:10 KJV] Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
God knows about the end from the beginning BECAUSE His counsel shall stand and He will do all His pleasure. In your case, His pleasure was to have you like vanilla, and like it well enough to always choose vanilla, apparently.
If so, it doesn't matter. Let me entertain your 'no choice' scenario for a moment: Not only did He say 'vanilla' but made me desire it anyway. In such, love is the involvement so I'd not care of 'no other choice' anyway. What you are saying, however, is that God did that with sin, by your proposition. God never wanted us to sin. We did. The Lord Jesus Christ was 'slain from the foundation of the world.' Revelation 5:12.13:8
Even Open Theism has no problem with God making plans contingent upon reality. They are only arguing extent
because it
seems like they have no choice if such is exhaustive. It is a theology construct for coping mechanism. I specifically reject/try to rejection emotionalism involved in my theology. It leads to emoted conclusions that are problematically fraught against revelation of God. The horse-sense approach is helpful, but should be checked and rechecked constantly because we, as fallible humans can make mistakes. Revelation from God specifically must be at the forefront of our theology. Romans 11:34 1 Corinthians 2:16
Yes, like all automatons.
Sophia or
Ameca? The comparison appears like fear-mongering. I don't want my theology built of of anything resembling emoting else it becomes 'me-ology' instead of theology. Instead, I don't want to demand something simply because it looks like it might be a danger to my individuality. Our autonomy is a break from God because of sin. I don't want to protect that in trying to understand my place in God's economy. I want to be whatever He intended and intends. Clearly scriptures are calling me to be God-willed and other-sensitive over and against imperializing something special/separate from God's intention. If I entertain your idea for a second: I'd rather be an automaton (clearly I'm not one) than out of His will. That said, show that choice is lost or it is simply an inkling or fear set loose.
Yes, but as others have pointed out, EDF is infallible. And for it to be so, there must be someone who determines ahead of time, either God, or this unknown being who has more power than God.
I've given links above, that it does not do that. It is an assumption that it does. Infallible means I don't have a mistaken conception about any one thing. Exhaustively, all the better. Recording what we are going to do in the future doesn't do anything. You can go ahead and record that I've chosen vanilla and an odd time I may have gone butterscotch. Choice will simply be what you
already know about me. The only difference between you and God on the matter is He'll not make a mistake: That's it. It does nothing to your choice.
For anything to be predetermined, and therefore knowable infallibly, there must be a determiner beforehand.
God, sure. Couple of points that may conflate this later in conversation: 1)
you are talking about determinism, not just foreknowledge. I don't believe EDF has to mean determinism.
If the beforehand goes back to when it became knowable infallibly. (For brevity's sake, I'll go back to calling this "knowable", since the "infallibly" is part of the definition of "omniscient".)
Knowledge is just knowledge. I have absolutely no power. You can conceive of me being able to guess accurately, my wife's decisions for the rest of our lives together (not arguing that I can, just that you can conceive of it as a possibility). Sure, she is her own person, but there is nothing in the fact that I know, that erases here deciding ability. It is simply how well we know somebody. Such then doesn't eliminate her relationship, it is what builds relationship.
No, if God knows you are going to choose vanilla because that is ingrained in your being, and He knows it because He can "read" your being, it is different than it being planned for the ingraining before the world was created.
Good, making my argument for me. That is all that EDF does. Even if you pressed determinism: as long as you are created to 'like' it, you'd be as happy as a lark. It is rather 'why' you choose that you value a thing and we are largely hedonistic/egocentric in choice. It is rather when we are believers and we learn to make decisions that are good for others, that we emulate our Creator in His image. It isn't choice but love, that gives us meaning.
So in David's enemies case, if they had been predetermined from when the world began, as I believe you espouse
No, not necessarily. It isn't that I don't believe in determinism, it is rather that I don't care if I'm an automaton or independent from God as an entity. I don't have an ego when it comes to wanting God. I simply want what He wants regardless of what that is. He is good and loving and I trust Him, not afraid, His nature takes care of all of my 'what ifs.'
then they (the enemies) cannot be the determiners, since they didn't exist.
You are trying to set up determinism, as somehow necessary for EDF but I'm not seeing it. Not at all. Even 'if' such isn't enough to do much to my theology any way.
Yes, that is what I'm arguing for, because that is the basis of God's omniscience, at least the kind mentioned in Is 46:10.
Isa 46:4 even to old age I am He; and to gray hairs I will bear you. I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you.
Isa 46:5 To whom will you compare Me, and make Me equal, and compare Me, that we may be alike?
Isa 46:6 They pour gold out of the bag, and weigh silver out of the measuring rod, and hire a goldsmith; and he makes it a god; they fall down, yea, they bow down.
Isa 46:7 They carry it on the shoulder, they carry it and set it in its place, and it stands; it shall not move from its place. Yes, one shall cry to it, yet it cannot answer, nor save him out of his trouble.
Isa 46:8 Remember this, and be a man; return it on your heart, O sinners.
Isa 46:9 Remember former things from forever; for I am God, and no other is God, even none like Me,
Isa 46:10 declaring the end from the beginning, and from the past things which were not done, saying, My purpose shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure;
Isa 46:11 calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my purpose from a far country. Yes, I have spoken, I will also cause it to come; I have formed; yes, I will do it.
Isa 46:12 Listen to me, stubborn-hearted who are far from righteousness;
Isa 46:13 I bring near My righteousness. It shall not be far off, and My salvation shall not wait; and I will place salvation in Zion, My glory for Israel.
If it means what you think it means, why would you have a theology opposed to it? To me, it reads as 'assurance of salvation' meaning He is saying He declared specifically salvation from the beginning thus Christ is 'slain from the foundation of the world.'
Briefly: God can both have EDF and it contain any and all interaction of Himself. They can be conflated but can also be thought of as two separate considerations. EDF doesn't have to mean 'no choice' that I've ever seen sufficiently proven. A 'certainty' may seem like a 'choice' eraser, but it is a choice recorder rather. I can, with certainty, say you wrote Isaiah 46:10. It has nothing to do with you choosing it. If
I just knew it from the last post, it doesn't matter. The fact that you think you chose, regardless, shows that either way it doesn't matter because literally it didn't and doesn't. The only time you'd be bothered is if it troubles you logically, like you were an automaton (I seriously could give a care less because I know my reality, in Christ). It literally has no bearing on my living specifically because whatever I am, I'm exactly as I'm made and intended. God loves me, the way I am for His future desires. Freedom isn't my cry "Jesus'!" is.
I need more than "it" in that sentence. I'm assuming that God's (contingent) prediction would have come to pass if David had chosen that path. Is that what you mean?
Yep.
The eisegesis part is that the knowledge was available from the foundation of the world. I don't agree with that. But if I did, then it presumes, as I stated, that the knowledge must have a basis in fact, which means that the actions were predetermined. And that basis can only be
1. God, or
2. Someone else besides God who was alive (in existence and able to affect the facts of the future) at the time. (before the foundation of the world)
Assumption. I don't even care. In order to even make me want to care, you have to come up with something incredibly compelling that "if since the foundation of the world I have no choice" and a reason why I'd care. An erasure of identity? I don't think so. God loves us. It means already, I think, a sense of 'self' different than the Father that He loves. It is enough. Does it force an Open View? Not at this venture. Right out the gates, I've never needed an Open View to understand God or His scriptures and I find more rather than less problems in second-guessing if He knew where Adam was, etc. etc. etc. etc.
I do admit to proximal knowledge before the event, but NOT before the foundation of the world.
That IS proximal knowledge. You simply 'think' it isn't and I'd simply say "Is to God, no big deal at all' because I imagine His Omnicompetence incredibly larger than what I think Open Theists do. IOW, if I were Open Theist, I would forever after be hard for an Open Theist or every other theist to distinguish. I'd already believe something VERY near to the rest of Christendom because He is more than my conception already. "Why not!" would be my new battle cry because "not that big, just seems so to another Open Theist because he/she doesn't think as big as I do. I'd simply say like I just said: That
is proximal knowledge!
The difference is that "before the event" includes the timeframe when the expected perpetrators were alive and able to causatively effect the outcome God predicted. They are the "someone else", but they weren't in existence before the foundation of the world,
Depends on how big the proximal knowledge, no?
only before the predicted event was to have taken place. The timing is EVERYTHING in that passage (when talking about omniscience). Determiners have to exist to determine something. Knowledge requires determiners. Knowledge before the foundation of the world means the events were determined before the foundation of the world.
Look at Open and Arminian suppostions: That God is Omnicompetent, and or knows all contigency implicitly. To me, they both equal the same thing, just one (I believe) has a bigger conception of possibility). I'm not God, but I 'can' conceive of all of everything as proximal knowledge. So, for a second, entertain in the same way you can know something that doesn't at all erase choice, God can too. We are just talking about incredible exponentials you and I and the rest of humanity put together is incapable of. The only thing that changes is the amount of information. There are almost 8 billion people on the planet and God already knows the number among about 100,000 hairs on each of our heads. He already exceeds our capacity to 'imagine' how much He knows. We get inklings. Enter then, the Open Theist trying to tell me he/she knows what God
doesn't know. To me? Pretty far fetched. Job 38:1-7
God didn't create "the past" nor "the future", but He created IN the past (already accomplished and unchangeable by nature),
Is it truly unchangeable? How can you be certain? I believe an Open Theist told me 'then God would be purporting a lie.' Why? Does He owe us explanations of things He's done? His planet or ours?
I've had scientists tell me the same thing, specifically because they want to demand that
their observations are the standard by which we know truth. I find humans make up rules and try to use them to make others conform to. I don't want to do that with God. He should set the rules.
and He will accomplish certain things IN the future. We, also, will accomplish certain things in the future, but I will never, nor will God, as far as I can tell from scripture, accomplish anything in the past.
My past is
always catching up to me. For future conversations, I don't see the past as quite as over as most people do. I've learned to question assertions against what I'm seeing as observable reality. True, I cannot go back to 7 years old, but I have virtually no control of aging. It came with the package. Rather, we are talking about our choices and I'm unconvinced I've made one choice I cannot go back and revisit which means, as far as choice goes, past and future have not a lot to do with me at all. I have right now. On this topic, this scripture speaks to me. What does it mean to you?
You can always kill the speech giver to change the content of his speech. And you admit it is possible with your "likely" modifier. So, now you are saying it is "unlikely" that I could change his speech, but not "impossible". That's a huge admission on your part, even if you aren't seeing it.
Not like you think. The 'best' you can do is one or two things that would affect any particular decision and even at that, you wouldn't be likely to be able to get near Lincoln, for example. So rather, I'm saying by analogy and entertaining the idea, you can at least imagine that having knowledge of the past would mean very little to those events. The point was to prove even in that scenario that your assertion that it'd equal determinism is slim to none by any necessity and only in the event you desired to change them, would you be even able to do anything with even just one or two of them! God can interact. That is none of our disqualifier. We all expect Him to answer our prayers. Such
changes choices and interferes with them. So and what? To me, it rips apart the whole Open paradigm of the need for it. To do what? Salvage autonomy? Not worth the effort. I'm not that important. "Not my will but Thine"? "Take up my cross daily?" Hello? Anybody?
When did you choose to come here? Before the foundation of the world? Or some number of minutes or seconds before you came? If the former, then YOU didn't choose to come here, someone chose for you. If the latter, then God didn't know you would choose to come to TOL today (and He was ok with that, probably).
Supra. Doesn't matter when I maintain it is all proximal.
No, not MY knowledge/foreknowledge. Because I don't have the power. But if I were, say 5 years older than you, and I knew you would come to TOL on the particular day in question before you were born...I hope you're seeing the pattern.
But by the implication, you are insisting He must exercise that power simply
because He has it. Our discussion is upon this whole premise.
Yes, you are correct. There is no choice in settled theism except that someone settles it before we all existed. A settled future requires a "settler" (meaning that a determined future requires a determiner).
Or so you and many Open Theists assume/believe. I don't have this hang-up and wouldn't care anyway (I simply trust God and don't care). 1) I don't believe quite the same about determinism to worry about your worry and 2) Wouldn't care anyway. I'm enjoying life God has given me. What I get or don't get isn't important. The truths I do get are what are important and these He has made abundantly clear.
Nope, THAT's just moving the goalpost. You are presuming someone (you) is making the (your) choices that wasn't around to make the choices. But you weren't there when it was all decided.
Except 1) It really doesn't matter specifically because I'm clay and He is the Potter. I'm His. That is enough. and 2) I can conceive of proximal knowledge you acquiesce as being immense and 3) that doesn't point to anything but EDF without determinism. The "D" doesn't mean 'determinism.' It means "definite."
My argument is that knowledge of that kind has to be based on something that exists.
Er, no. God spoke everything into existence before it existed. Certainlly He knew what it was going to be before it did. Further, you can create something without having seen it first. Are you sure your cognitive dissonance isn't just because you aren't thinking big enough? Are you making faulty assumptions because of the lack?
And if it (whatever that thing is) exists from the foundation of the world, it doesn't change between then and the time you start choosing vanilla. If your choices were already known, then they were known because somebody chose BACK THEN, not tomorrow.
I know this seems to make sense somehow in your mind, but I've seen nothing (zero) compelling arguement or evidence. Simply an idea purported at this venture that you cannot think of any greater proximal knowledge than
immediate, seems in front of your face.
If you discount anything that you don't agree with as being "off the table", truth will not be accessible to you.
Out of left field. Our discussion is about what 'is' on the table of this discussion. I summed it up thus "what is on the table." What is it? Whether or not EDF does
anything to choice. It
can, doesn't have to by any argument I've ever heard.
No, but choice does something to knowledge. Choice informs knowledge.
Somewhat. My wife knows I like Vanilla. Granted choice was involved the first 5-10 times. Now? No. Not really at all, Choice is in the 'past' as it were. I'm trying to argue in clarity that choice 1) Isn't really affected by foreknowledg and 2) isn't that important to who I am to want to desperately salvage some sense of it anyway. It just isn't even near the top of the pinnacle of who I am. Choice nor freedom define who I am. Most of who I am appreciably, is due to relationship and expression. The choice' about those plays in, initially, but is gone rather quickly.
Determinism is merely a description that accounts for the facts of the future. It says "this thing will happen at such and such a time in such and such a way." If the knowledge is true (and all God's knowledge is true, not contingent, in Calvinism and Arminianism). then the determination has already been made when God knows something. If God knows EVERYTHING, then the determination has been made for everything. This is purely description, not philosophy
Determinism rather is a demand that it will happen exactly as determined and means that the outcome cannot come about any other way. Foreknowledge, however, is simply a record before it happens. It say "this certainly will happen, but I have nothing to do with this outcome." It can be conceived as exactly that. Rather, the objection is "if you know, then you must have had something to do with it!" It is a legal accusation with an attempt at complicity. Open Theists want to be able to say on God's behalf "Because I didn't know." My argument is that it is presumtuous. God knows, literally while an atrocity is happening, that He could stop it. Denying Him foreknowledge, does absolutely nothing, nadda, zero for Him. The rest of us theologians have known this a very long time and so we wrestle rather than dismiss with "God didn't know." Of course God knew. He has ability to stop every atrocity this second. Rather, the rest of us theologians assert that the prosecutor is the one who is the problem. God did everything already to stop all this by sending His Son. Rather, God is most concerned with our eternal destination over and above our earthly pains and we assume often our earthly pains are rather the most important thing. We make assumptions and thrust them upon God.
Are you telling me that you're NOT conflating the past and future with the present? In other words, you believe people are currently doing something in the past and the future? That they are active time periods? Please explain if I'm missing something.
Yep. What I mean by you or another conflating, is that they are treating them as if they are uncrossable. It isn't time, but rather the scope of your choices and what you can do, that gets conflated. Your past and future are part of your now. Every decision you make isn't over, therefore is not past nor future but always a current choice. We don't have any control over others today that you'd have any more ability if you were with Abraham Lincoln, or you were able to move to see a great great grandbaby. The only influence you have is you and you are not time constrained to make those decisions. Also, choice isn't your most important attribute (negligible as a key in an ignition). Choice is simply the initiator of an action that comes from your values, thus you, your values, and your gifting from God are of much more significance as individual descriptors.
I believe I already did, but I'll explain again. "Determined" means that something has already been settled. "Settled" theists believe that all things are settled in a way that God can know them.
Most see the term and description as derogatory. Do you believe you were 'settled' ad that you believed God had to settle everything in predeterminism? Not all do, you are painting a strawman and knocking him down. Further, it yet looks like you are greatly conflating Foreknowledge with determinism. They are not the same. Determinism (simply) -
ensure to make happen Foreknowlege (knows, before it happens).
God knows them infallibly. Other words are available, including "omniscience" when it means everything about the future. "Omniscience" is preferred because it sounds much better than "Determinism" or "Settled Theism", but they mean the same.
No. They don't. Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world. Why? Because God was going to
make man fall? :nono: Even if you could argue this (nobody nobody nobody has) it wouldn't matter. Choice and freedom are low on my list of important things. Rather, I'm more concerned I'm like my Father, living pleasing to Him, glorify Him. I honestly don't care about how I get here. I need help and I thank Him I have that. 1 John 3:2 says one day we will be like Him. Do we have a choice? I don't. In the overall, my choices relegate my further ones to Him. I could give a care less how I got here, I'm valued, loved. This is enough. Neither the Calvinist nor the Open Theist have much that can add to these truths.
You know they do. Therefore, therefore they are "settled" or "determined".
I don't even think you know to assert what I must know about these. You've yet to make any argument that nails determinism to foreknowledge (of any kind). This btw, is where other's have left the conversation with me in case your exasperation point is there as well. Nobody can simply assert a thing just because 'it looks like it is true so it has to be!' I've come to question the veracity precisely because nobody but 'fears' it might be so, or believe it 'looks like' it must.
There is nothing to "prove", because it is all definitions up to this point.
As I said, this is the part where others leave the conversation. I literally believe you haven't proven a thing and I wholly disagree on every point of the definitions. Read again: No, they are certainly not the definitions and absolutely, from a dictionary even, do they not mean the same thing. Worse? Not even close! You cannot, will never find 'foreknowledge (of any kind) equals determinism' other than some philosophers that think it must be so. Granted a lot of people believe this. I used to as well, then started asking for proof. None to date. The first link I gave you from William Lane Craig said it was from a faulty premise. I believe that is correct. You may be searching in conversation for that bullet, but you haven't found it yet. At this venture it simply reads like doubling-down on assertions without an ounce of proof. Again, I used to think like this too, but I started asking people 'where did you get this from?' and they all have pretty much floundered like it appears you are doing here in thread.
Now, if something is "determined" and therefore "knowable", God has two ways to know something about the future that is already determined (knowable): He determined it or somebody else determined it (somebody that existed when the determination was made, i.e. when that thing became knowable).
I haven't read them much, so I don't know what their arguments are. If you don't mind, please poke your holes in my arguments when you answer my posts.
I hope you see them.
Yes. And He predetermined the sacrifice for such sin, and that He would offer it and accept it. All that was predetermined.
Just to be on page: God can determine anything He wants to, it is His planet, His to do with as He wills. He is a good God, so there is no room among believers for mistrust. We aren't arguing that God has deterministic will with us His people. He answers our prayers in a determined way. Rather, we are looking at assertions of loss of culpability if everything is predetermined. We also need to discuss that: God can, for instance, predetermine that you have a choice
! That will cause an infinite regress in contemplation about determinism and choice. Rather, what we are talking about most specifically is whether definite foreknowledge has to necessarily affect choices. I have no problem with complete determinism, doesn't matter. We know 'in' whatever we are in, determinism or freewill individualism, God loves us. In and of that, we have identity as an object of affection that separates us out as individuals of value and affection. However, scripture says we are entrusted with things God has given us, and such means 'out of His hands' to a degree. The only thing we are arguing of any significance, is 'if Lon sees that he has responsibilities, how can he believe God already knows what Lon is going to do with that trust?' Okay 1) Lon doesn't care. He has been given responsibility and he wants to do a good job. It doesn't matter how much depends on Lon. Good parents will about hold hands with a child to help them learn something. 2) Relationship, not independence is key to the value which leave 'choice' somewhere down the list on importance. 3) Evidentally (If Lon is right) EDF has nothing at all to do what what Lon chooses anyway. It simply doesn't matter and
even if it did, it simply doesn't matter.
Sound familiar? isn't this what you are trying to do with your "Vanilla, but I get to choose, and knowledge doesn't do anything" statements? Isn't it avoiding the issue we're trying to discuss, just like leaving determinism off the table avoids the issue we're trying to discuss. Your posts reveal your own internal conflict, that you know choice can't be yours if the decision is known before you exist--but you won't admit it
Most of this from my first few months on TOL 30 years ago, not necessarily where I'm at today, but I want you to see the questions in the raw back then):
Worse! I honestly don't care and wonder why Open Theists do! What are you trying to preserve? Isn't it just something for yourself (not an accusation, just have trouble seeing the point)? Isn't it just and literally for your own peace of mind? When I first saw this dilemma on TOL, I thought it looked a bit like navel gazing. What is the point? My scripture says to 'deny self, take up cross, follow.' Where is choice in that other than to just do it? I find our problem isn't choice, but laziness and a lack of commitment etc.
Derf
knowledge of future choices doesn't do anything, but the fact that the knowledge is infallible cements the choices before the supposed chooser exists, meaning that someone else did the choosing.
No it doesn't. It is an assertion and I've no idea how/where you can pick up such an assertion. It is like saying my wife has to be able to be wrong about vanilla in order for me not to love it!
(at least at this point, it looks this crazy in assertion, I literally see no connection for the absurd).
Are you sure you want to make THAT dichotomy?
Absolutely. I'm saying that logical (by assertion) doesn't mean it is where I have to necessarily go if it
isn't logical to me. Hence let's revisit what is
actually logical, can be shown to be; and not only that, but whether I see it as a necessary outcome that others do. Many people think EDF equals determinism. They think they are being logical. It
seems it'd be
incredibly easy to prove demonstrably if such were true (I suspect this may be one reason some leave the conversation and say my obtusion and comments are not worthy of response).
Are you saying that the knowledge of the future "actuates" what will happen? I thought you thought knowledge didn't do anything. I applaud your new word. It obfuscates even better than "omniscient". Bravo.
I could have been clearer, but God started (actuated/created) all creation. Actuate can mean cause, but I'm using it to simply mean "records what is actual/acknowledges/makes the knowledge real" and "spoke into existence." Because He is God, what He records is authenticated. Not exactly what you were hoping for but you jump the gun once inawhile. Better to ask, wait, then see, no?
Of course you should know already that "settled" is used to describe something that is already decided. "Determined" would do the job just as well. I have no idea what "actuate" is supposed to mean, so it will probably do the job for you.
1) realize 'settled' tends to be perjorative from Open Theists toward the rest of us and 2) often it is a strawman that isn't actually believed or by very few. You can go from there, but it is definitely affecting, I believe in a poor way, your current theology and what you believe about others. None of us want inaccuracies to be up against actuals or our theology is partly built of faulty premise.
What you stated so succinctly is that most Christians abhor Calvinism, but many can't seem to reject it outright.
You are confusing double-pred with single-pred Calvinism, I believe: Yes, double-pred are considered heretical and rejected outright by all of Christendom.
They don't believe EDF removes choice because the world ceases to make any sense. The Bible, too. God becomes a monster, or God becomes a mere spectator, a puppet Himself, wielded by the monster that does all the choosing for us.
Never seen anybody that believes the latter. Speculation/guess? The reason EDF doesn't do anything is because knowledge itself (of any kind) doesn't do anything. It informs and is an impetus thus is twice removed from any action (demonstrably). I
know there is a war going on between Russia and Ukraine and I
know that it will not go on forever. You would call me silly if I thought now the Ukrainians had lost choice because of what I know. Further, if I guessed all and was proven right on everything, everything everything that is about to happen, you should likewise think I am being ridiculous if I thought none of them had a choice atf. You'd simply say: "That is amazing! How did you know that?" You'd never in a million years think I was in charge of the outcome of the Russian/Ukrainian war. It honestly looks the same for anybody trying to assert so with simply EDF against God. It just does not add up. Even if a conspiracy theory went around, we still think conspiracy theorists are nutty and few would listen.
Yep! The "almanac" illustration for God means that everything the Almanac addresses is settled before the supposed choices have been made, but really not. The almanac choices were made before the almanac was written, and the participants are choiceless.
Sure, but simply recorded as correct. Can you go back and stop Lincoln from being shot? No! Does it somehow mean the history book had something to do with Lincoln's assasination? Absolutely not. So here we are in the future and know what happened in the past, and none of us having anything to do with Lincoln. How is that possible? Think about that again: here we are, in Lincoln's future, and we know infallibly what happened to Lincoln. There is a bit of difference, but not much: Rather, if you phrase it just rightly: "Lincoln couldn't have been anything but shot because we know exactly what happened." True to a point but does it mean Lincoln necessarily 'had to be shot with no choices?' Certainly not. All kinds of things 'could' have happened and because they 'could' have happened, then the past was not unalterably locked in any more than you choosing vanilla ice cream tomorrow. There is nothing to knowledge that demands 'it
had to be this way.' Rather it 'actualizes' (records, yea even demands) that it did. Not have to, did.
I don't see that as a problem for Open Theism, only for the unsettling Settled Theism. Open Theism doesn't need those words, but you're saying that even God can't find those words to use, even though He invented languages in order to communicate with us (and allow between us).
Except when you (and other Open Theists) try to pressure God to
have to predetermine what He knows about what hasn't happened yet. He
does do it when He tells us past-tense Satan is thrown into the Lake of Fire. Therefore God is telling you with the verbs you understand the occurences of past/present/future and importantly, interchangeably. It means, I think at the least, past/present/future must be seen as overlapping, especially if our language suggests it is true. Part of this is English, but certainly Greek, capable of expressing verbs better, does the same thing.
Here's the best I can find:
[Isa 46:10 KJV] Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
1. Declaring from ancient times the things that are not yet done.
2. Saying My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.
Which statements both explain HOW God can declare the end from the beginning...He will accomplish (do) the things that He wants (His counsel and His pleasure), which in no way should ever include wanting humans to sin. Thus, He KNOWS what the end will be, because He will accomplish it.
If you understand God this way from this scripture, how did you move to Open Theism? I don't understand the verse the way you do, but if I did, Open Theism would be out of the question.
