I don't know how well I can keep the different parts of this conversation in perspective without including the post parts you were replying to, and maybe what I was replying to from you, too. So I'll try to intersperse some of the older posts.
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.
Evidence after the fact is all we have. The bible is evidence after the fact. Even when there are prophecies, we don't usually understand them until after the fact, and then (and only then) can we use them to prove the truth of prophecy. And such is the only evidence we have for God's omniscience--the rest is faith and trust and hope.
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.
You made this point several times. I don't what to do with it, as it isn't a doctrine, nor do we know how to apply it, since application would be self-fulfilling. So if I comment on it from here on, it will likely be merely with "Supra". Btw, if you are an "automaton", you would only "like" what you are programmed to like, only "love" what you are programmed to love, only "care" about what you are programmed to care about. Which makes the automaton model a useless thing to discuss. If that's the model, then all of our conversations here are preprogrammed, and we aren't really making sense of anything.
What you are saying, however, is that God did that with sin, by your proposition. God never wanted us to sin.
He did in Calvinism.
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.
Calvinism has a problem with God making plans contingent on reality, because He made reality what reality is.
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.
Remember this for later, your "rejection" of emotionalism.
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, indeed. So do all the other options, when we get involved in the interpretation.
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.
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.
Right. In order for knowledge to be both exhaustive and infallible, all of it has to be unchangeable. God can't both know that I will become a believer and know that I won't without there being something mistaken in His knowledge
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.
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.
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.
Here's my input that led to the following from you:
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.
Your saying that EDF is God reading your ingraining at the time of your choice? I think that's incorrect. God's "reading", if He knows from the foundation of the world, must be happening at the foundation of the world. But that means your "ingraining" is available to be read at the foundation of the world, according to EDF. You weren't there at the foundation of the world (you are not eternal), so what God was reading was a record, to use your word, of what your ingraining will be later in time. But for that to be your ingraining later in time, and for God to know what that ingraining will be at the foundation of the world, means that your ingraining was already set or planned for back that. And when you were born, the planned ingraining was exactly what somebody planned back then, else God's EDF was wrong.
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.
Love is a choice. You've over-dichotomized.
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.'
Supra
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.
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?
This may turn out to be the crux of our disagreement, and I will be satisfied all you answer in your reply is this: How do you think my theology is opposed what what I think this passage means? (There are two questions in there: What do you think I think the Is 46:10 (and surrounding) passage means? and How is my 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.'
Meaning it is not meant to be understood as applying to all of God's knowledge, just salvation?
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.
As I said, "EDF" means that the choice has already been made and if known. EDF doesn't make the choice, but records it, as you keep saying. And "EDF" from the foundation of the world means that the choice is already made by that time, and recorded. All of this making of choices and recording is happening before you and I existed, therefore we weren't involved in the choosing.
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.
You seem to be saying that "certainty" is a choice recorder, and when you read my post (a record of my choice) you can say with certainty that I wrote "Is 46:10". My post is a record of past action on my part. So it is a certainty that I wrote that. Your knowledge of past actions is great, and in this instance one might say "exhaustive" and infallible. But
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.
How emotional you are, Lon!
Yep.
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.
In other words, it doesn't matter to you whether your (and by extension, my) theology is correct or not? Ok, then why do you come in on these discussions? I assume you would be just happy debating a mormon about the Godhead--and presenting the same argument, that you really don't care whether you are correct or not? What you've set up in you mind is an unfalsifiable view of God--that your theology, whatever it happens to be at any point in time, is not worthy of defending.
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!
Depends on how big the proximal knowledge, no?
You'll have to explain what you mean by "proximal knowledge" and why it pertains to our conversation.
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.
You are invoking the "mystery" card? That's fine, but it works both ways. If I have a reasoning that make sense, follows the biblical teaching, etc., and you play the mystery card, then you are admitting you have nothing to argue with.
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
Again, it's the "mystery card". It's true that we don't know what God knows, but that either means we can't know anything about God, or we can know what He tells us in His word.
From my post:
Which ideas am I conflating? I only see one here. I do not believe that the past and the future intersect with anything. I'm not sure they are "entities", except in conversation. God didn't create "the past" nor "the future", but He created IN the past (already accomplished and unchangeable by nature), 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.
Is it truly unchangeable? How can you be certain? I believe an Open Theist told me 'then God would be purporting a lie.' Why?
You mean because then His Word would be different? In other words, He could go back in the past and change it so that Jesus never had to die, even after He already died? Are you wanting to argue for that?
Does He owe us explanations of things He's done? His planet or ours?
No, but He provided some explanations. Are you saying those are untrustworthy?
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.
Which, coming from His character, would not allow God to have Jesus die, then go back and smooth everything over so that He doesn't have to. These are conflicting things, and it suggests that God was not capable of handling the world as it became, and He had to fix something before it got too bad. The flood should be evidence that He doesn't need to do that--He is competent enough to know when to destroy the world, even, and still keep His plan on target.
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,
That really should end that part of our discussion. Why do you continue to say anything else about it?
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?
But you have said repeatedly that all of our choices are recorded before we make them. If that's true, then SOMEONE might have the information you need to "know of the morrow". This leads to divination, it seems to me.
My post for below conversation:
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!
Then your point is lost on me. Having knowledge of the past and the power to reenter the past would definitely allow the possibility of changing the past. The past is "determined", and "settled". You can't change it without messing up something we know about it. For instance, if you went back in time and whispered to Goliath that David was about to hit him in the forehead with a rock, so he should raise his shield or duck, and then David misses. The bible would be either wrong or rewritten, and so would our memories of the story. But God tells us we can trust Him about what happened in the past, especially what He did (like in the Creation, but I think you're saying God could go change how He creatd the world, right?):
[Ecc 3:14 KJV] I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth [it], that [men] should fear before him.
He can't change the interactions He had with us in the past, according to that passage.
That is none of our disqualifier. We all expect Him to answer our prayers. Such changes choices and interferes with them. So and what?
So and what? So you've just admitted to being an Open Theist. Our prayers did not exist at the foundation of the world, or they wouldn't be "our prayers". If He knew our prayers before the foundation of the world, then they were already, they existed back then for Him to know them, and they they were someone else's prayers (someone who existed at that time)
To me, it rips apart the whole Open paradigm of the need for it. To do what? Salvage autonomy?
I'm not trying to salvage autonomy, I'm trying to get you to see that autonomy exists in every book of the bible. And it potentially gets people in trouble, and potentially helps to save people who are dying.
Not worth the effort. I'm not that important. "Not my will but Thine"? "Take up my cross daily?" Hello? Anybody?
If you tell people they are automatons, and cannot affect their destiny one iota, and that's God's will, what is there to respond to? How can anyone respond? You can't take up your cross daily unless you were programmed to do so, so how important is it? If God programmed automatons, they would all do EXACTLY what His will was, and would only say "not my will but Thine" if He programmed them to say it, so it was His will. They wouldn't have a will.
Supra. Doesn't matter when I maintain it is all proximal.
Supra
My post:
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.
Or so you and many Open Theists assume/believe.
The truths I do get are what are important and these He has made abundantly clear.
Except you said you didn't care about truth, it wouldn't matter to you.
Except 1) It really doesn't matter specifically because I'm clay and He is the Potter. I'm His. That is enough.
He can lie or change the past or throw you in hell for something you had no choice in? 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."
Synonyms for "definite":
certain,
decided, decisive, defined, distinct, formed,
settled
I thought you didn't like "settled" theism.
Er, no. God spoke everything into existence before it existed. Certainlly He knew what it was going to be before it did.
It existed as a plan. God first decided (chose) what He was going to do. It existed in His mind.
Further, you can create something without having seen it first.
Randomly, I suppose I can. But if I have a purpose, then I'm "seeing" it in my mind.
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?
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.
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.
I'm repeating myself: EDF doesn't "do" anything. But it is only possible when the choices have already been made. The record has already been written, in your words.
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.
Yep
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 rather is a demand that it will happen exactly as determined and means that the outcome cannot come about any other way.
Yep.
Foreknowledge, however, is simply a record before it happens.
BECAUSE it has already been determined. The record tells us it has already been determined. If there is only one determiner at the time it was determined, then that's who determines what the record will be. If there are multiple determiners, then someone might be a knower of the record without being the determiner.
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.
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.
But you agree that if the choice is known before the (potential) chooser exists, then the potential chooser is not the real chooser.
Your past and future are part of your now.
Says who?
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.
Sure you are. If I have a deadline to turn in a work project, or I get fired, I have to choose to get the job done, or choose to get fired. If I don't get the job done, then I've chosen to get fired at the deadline.
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,
Not if the choice is already made before I exist.
and your gifting from God are of much more significance as individual descriptors.
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).
Yet foreknowledge is only possible with some type of determinism. I foreknow I'm going to get fired because I have decided not to finish my task. The outcome is determined by me, by the choice I made. But if the outcome is determined before I exist or before I get the job, then I wasn't the chooser, someone else was.
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.
Well, that's emotionalistic, anyway.
Neither the Calvinist nor the Open Theist have much that can add to these truths.
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).
No, you made that argument yourself. Look back at the synonyms for "definite".
This btw, is where other's have left the conversation with me in case your exasperation point is there as well.
I might be more patient. I'm not sure. You conflict with yourself, but you don't recognize it.
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.
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.
I hope you see them.
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.
That's an interesting thing to say, because it says that determinism is definitely on the table.
We also need to discuss that: God can, for instance, predetermine that you have a choice
!
He can't predetermine me to have a choice and then make the choice for me. And if he knows what I will choose before I exist, then the choice is predetermined (by somebody that isn't me).
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.
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):
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).
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).
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?
Not if He's already answered and we're merely rejecting His answer.
1) realize 'settled' tends to be perjorative from Open Theists toward the rest of us and
I'm happy to use a different term, like "determined", if you want. What is happening, though, is that people describe determinism, then reject determinism. So we're "open" to using a different word, as long as it effectively describes. "Determinism" turned into a bad word, and you are saying "settled" is, too. Please give us a word that people actually know what it means. "Actuated" is foreign, except that someone actually is performing the act, which is, precisely, determinism.
2) often it is a strawman that isn't actually believed or by very few.
So you have to invent new words? How then is it a strawman?
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.
You are confusing double-pred with single-pred Calvinism, I believe: Yes, double-pred are considered heretical and rejected outright by all of Christendom.
Westminster Confession is double-pred. I can't think of a more accepted version of Calvinism. You are ready to call all Westminsterists heretical? Calvin was double-pred, too. The whole idea of God knowing everything because He has ordained it, and not because He is just aware of it, is Calvinism, determinism, double-pred. But it is monstrous, so most reject it.
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.
Speaking of strawmen. You do realize I've said numerous times that isn't what I'm arguing for, right?
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.
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.
But write the history book 100 years before Lincoln existed, then, use that knowledge to tell people you are God. Don't you think a true God would have something to do with the choices men make in order to bring about the result He knew? Wouldn't you then say:
Only I can tell you the future
before it even happens.
Everything I plan will come to pass,
for I do whatever I wish. (New Living Translation)
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.
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.
Well, John was describing what He had already seen. It was indeed a description of past activity he reported to us, because that's what he saw. God might describe in poetic form as past tense what He is going to accomplish in the future elsewhere, but not Revelation. That was...revelation that happened to John and he described it as such.
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.
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.
That God knows the parts of the future that He has determined? Why is that in opposition to Open Theism?
I moved to Open Theism because Calvinism was anti-biblical (heretical, as you said). Most Calvinists that recognize the heresy just disown one part of the package so they can feel better (emotionalism) about God. You wouldn't be guilty of that, would you?
