Will Duffy YouTube Debate v CJ Borns Open Theism 11/23/19

[way 2 go]

I said Satan didn't acknowledge God could see into the future. That's not the same thing as having foreknowledge. Is 46 explains the main source of God's foreknowledge:
[Isa 46:10-11 KJV] 10 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: 11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken [it], I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed [it], I will also do it.

This is one of the strongest passages for Open Theism, despite settled theists trying to claim it, because it explains God's prophetic power. Since God doesn't purpose everything you do, you can still pick a different cereal for breakfast tomorrow.

This is different than the Peter denial scenario. I disagree with Clete that Peter could have stopped the denials--I don't think he could have--not because God was forcing him to deny, and not because the future was already settled, but because that was the kind (and timing and number) of temptation God had approved for Peter, and that was the state of Peter's character.

I agree with you that if Peter might have stopped denying prior to the last denial, then Christ/God was guessing.

The denial prediction was not of the same flavor as many prophetic passages whose very purpose is to elicit repentance. The purpose of the denial prediction, along with its fulfillment, was to bring about a realization in Peter of his faults, so that he could fully trust in Christ instead of himself.

so Jesus knew Peter's future and was not guessing , not exactly open theism .

Satan has foreknowledge of God's plan based on reading the bible. But Satan hasn't yet agreed that it is his settled future.

satan has knowledge of God's plan it is God who knows what is going to happen to satan

Does God guess at what He wants to accomplish? Surely you will have to say "no". Does God accomplish what He wants to accomplish? "Yes." If He knows what He wants to accomplish, and is able to accomplish it, then there's no guessing on His part. There's just power.

Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial onto the sun. And it was given to him to burn men with fire.
Rev 16:9 And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory.

the Judgement God is not guessing at , that we all know but

open theism says God is guessing that "they did not repent" result

Let's think about Peter's denial. Did God want Peter to deny Jesus?..........I think the answer is "no", but I can see a purpose (as described above) for the denial. But if God is the forcing power behind Peter's denial, then His kingdom seems to be a divided one. In other words, if God is somehow forcing Peter to deny Christ, then He's not being an encouragement to Jesus during a very tough time, and Peter doesn't have to accept responsibility for his denials. This is the Calvinist settled view. No good purpose is served unless Peter denies on his own--and then Peter can see his sin, being broken, and allow Jesus to build him back up to be a true leader of the church.

The other option is that God did not force Peter to deny Jesus, but could somehow see into the future to see what Peter would do. This is the Arminian settled view. But it is untenable once God needs to change anything in that "settled" future, which He would have to do before the foundation of the world. Then it slips back into Calvinism.

then there is the fact that Jesus knew what peter would do settled or not .

Details of Peter's actions can still be seen to be a description of Peter's character. Foreknowledge, yes. But the basis is the question.

Knowing when the rooster will crow is possibly an act of God's power, again (timing the natural actions of a bird), rather than just seeing into the future.

This is also the difference between divination and asking God for the outcome of a battle or other event.

Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial onto the sun. And it was given to him to burn men with fire.
Rev 16:9 And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory.

open theism says God is guessing that "they did not repent" result


Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be loosed out of his prison.
Rev 20:8 And he will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle. The number of them is as the sand of the sea.
Rev 20:9 And they went up over the breadth of the earth and circled around the camp of the saints, and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of Heaven and devoured them.

open theism says God is guessing

 

[Derf]

so Jesus knew Peter's future and was not guessing , not exactly open theism .

Of course not--not if you define open theism as guessing. This is what I was talking about--you've already decided what it is, and can't fathom anything else. Which makes it hardly worth discussing with you. But that's the same thing other anti-open-theism people do with open theism--they decide what it means, and can't let go of their home-made definition. That's officially called a straw-man argument.

satan has knowledge of God's plan it is God who knows what is going to happen to satan

More what God is going to do to Satan. It's not just some random things that will happen to Satan. And I believe God has the power to do those things. Satan may believe God does NOT have the power to do those things to him.

There are other parts of the story--what Satan is going to do. God is predicting Satan's actions in revelation. This may be very similar to how Jesus predicted Peter's denial--by knowing his character. God knows Satan's character. He knows what he will do when given power or when restrictions are removed.

Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial onto the sun. And it was given to him to burn men with fire.
Rev 16:9 And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory.

the Judgement God is not guessing at , that we all know but

open theism says God is guessing that "they did not repent" result

I thought we just went over this?? Open theism does not say God is guessing, but says God knows
1. what God will do
2. the exact character of the specific people He deals with
3. the general character of righteous people
4. the general character of wicked people

then there is the fact that Jesus knew what peter would do settled or not .

So you are admitting that God can know something that is going to happen even if it's not settled? This is important. God knew that He planned to destroy Nineveh, He told Nineveh they were going to be destroyed, but it wasn't settled. Was God guessing that He would destroy Nineveh? Isn't that a silly question?

And God knew that Hezekiah would die of his illness, and told him so. Then God knew the opposite--that Hezekiah would live through his illness, and told him so. God told Hezekiah two opposite things about how his life would end. The only way that God could be telling the truth to Hezekiah is if Hezekiah's fate changed in between the two predictions. And these predictions were delivered on the same day, probably just minutes apart. What option do you have to explain this story? If the future was settled so that Hezekiah would like for 15 more years, then saying he would die of the illness and needed to get his house in order was deception of God's part--a lie. Yet that was God's message to Hezekiah. I don't think it was a lie--which means that it was God's plan at the time the message was delivered. Then God's plan for Hezekiah changed when Hezekiah prayed for mercy.

What option are you offering on Peter's denial. You've already said you don't like Calvinism's view on it. I showed that the Arminian view is untenable. Would you like to either agree or disagree with that? If you disagree, can you say why I'm wrong? If you agree, can you say what your view is and how it differs from open theism?

Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial onto the sun. And it was given to him to burn men with fire.
Rev 16:9 And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory.

open theism says God is guessing that "they did not repent" result

We are both assuming that all of this is something that is indeed going to happen. If the purpose of such a prophecy were to convince the wicked to repent, and the wicked did indeed repent, then like Nineveh, the predicted catastrophe could be averted. And the story line is that the ones that don't repent continue to face the judgment of God. It's like saying "all those who did not repent cursed God. Then the next plague started, and those that did not repent cursed God some more. Then the next plague started..."

And there always seem to be plenty more people that hate God and His standards.

Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be loosed out of his prison.
Rev 20:8 And he will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle. The number of them is as the sand of the sea.
Rev 20:9 And they went up over the breadth of the earth and circled around the camp of the saints, and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of Heaven and devoured them.

open theism says God is guessing

God is guessing about what? That Satan will seek to deceive the nations? Why is that a guess. Do you think God is guessing about Satan's character?
Is God guessing that there will be multitudes that follow Satan? Why is that a guess? Do you think God believes all people will be ready to bow the knee to Him at that time? Remember that this is after Jesus rules with a rod of iron, so these people have been forced to follow the laws of the righteous King, and they hate it.

Not wanting to compare any current ruler too closely with Jesus, but can you see that this is happening even now in the US? The reason the democrats hate Donald Trump is not because he is so detestable, but because his policies are so detestable to them. And many of those policies are considered good ones by Christians, and if they are Spirit led, then those policies must be ones Jesus would approve of.

So why is it far-fetched that God can predict multitudes of people will detest His leadership and seek to defeat Him in battle? He doesn't say which ones. He doesn't name names. Even the Antichrist's name, nor his prophet, is not revealed, except through an enigmatic number.

 

[way 2 go]

Of course not--not if you define open theism as guessing. This is what I was talking about--you've already decided what it is, and can't fathom anything else. Which makes it hardly worth discussing with you. But that's the same thing other anti-open-theism people do with open theism--they decide what it means, and can't let go of their home-made definition. That's officially called a straw-man argument.

define open theism without words similar to guessing

 

[way 2 go]

More what God is going to do to Satan. It's not just some random things that will happen to Satan. And I believe God has the power to do those things. Satan may believe God does NOT have the power to do those things to him.

There are other parts of the story--what Satan is going to do. God is predicting Satan's actions in revelation. This may be very similar to how Jesus predicted Peter's denial--by knowing his character. God knows Satan's character. He knows what he will do when given power or when restrictions are removed.


I thought we just went over this?? Open theism does not say God is guessing, but says God knows
1. what God will do
2. the exact character of the specific people He deals with
3. the general character of righteous people
4. the general character of wicked people

sounds like Calvinism where their choice has been predetermined .

 

[Derf]

define open theism without words similar to guessing

God chooses what God will do. Man chooses what man wants to do. God either lets him or doesn't.

Nothing similar to guessing.

 

[way 2 go]

God chooses what God will do. Man chooses what man wants to do. God either lets him or doesn't.

Nothing similar to guessing.

what about foreknowledge ?



I'm currently reading "Does Open Theism Question/dispute the Omniscience of God" thread opcorn:

 

[way 2 go]

:think:

now I know & quote passages


Appealing to selective evidence to make a claim that God does not know something is where this leads. For example, does the claim it was because Abraham did what he did that the Lord now knew Abraham was a faithful covenant partner (Gen 22:12) really withstand the evidence in Scripture's plain teachings about the knowledge of God?

To make such a bold claim is to ignore the related texts to this passage, especially Hebrews 11:19, which says, "He (Abraham) considered that God is able to raise men (Isaac) even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type." If we exposit the passage, it demonstrates without any doubt that Abraham had a God-fearing heart leading up to his sacrifice of Isaac. Since God knows this—all openists acknowledge God has perfect knowledge of the past and present—it is absolutely error to interpret Gen 22:12 as saying that when Abraham lifted the knife did God 'learn' that Abraham feared God. It is easy to make the Bible say what we want it to say when we only appeal to certain texts and certain parts of certain texts.

It is not as though God was ignorant before how things would issue; for God knew from all eternity what Abraham would be, and what he would do, having determined to bestow that grace upon him, and work it in him, which would influence and enable him to act the part he did. God knew full well beforehand what would be the consequence of such a trial of Abraham.

In the passage in question, God speaks thus with us, not according to His own infinite wisdom, but according to our infirmity as finite creatures.

This "now I know" is spoken here, as in many other places, of God after the manner of men—who know things with certainty when they come to pass—Who is then said to know a thing, when it is notorious and evident to a man's self and others by some remarkable effect. Thus David prayed that God would search and know his heart, and his thoughts, Psalm 139:23, though David had before professed twenty-one verses earlier that God understood his thought afar off, Psalm 139:2.

God by trying Abraham made it manifest to others, to all the world, to all that should hear of or read this account of things, that Abraham was a man that feared God, loved him, believed in him, and obeyed him.

Accordingly, now I have what I designed and willed; now I have made you and others to know is the proper understanding of such passages.

AMR

 

[Derf]

what about foreknowledge ?



I'm currently reading "Does Open Theism Question/dispute the Omniscience of God" thread opcorn:

What about foreknowledge? Did you hear Duffy discussing it? He said only open theism allows for foreknowledge. And only open theism allows for knowledge of the past. I'm not yet willing to go that far, but I understood his point. If God lives in an eternal now, then nothing is past or future to Him.

Semantically, Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial is not the same as other examples of foreknowledge. It definitely isn't something that Jesus would have had to know from the foundation of the world, right?

 

[way 2 go]

What about foreknowledge? Did you hear Duffy discussing it?

yes , that is how I came to the conclusion that open theism has God guessing about the future.

He said only open theism allows for foreknowledge. And only open theism allows for knowledge of the past. I'm not yet willing to go that far, but I understood his point. If God lives in an eternal now, then nothing is past or future to Him.

He said only open theism allows for foreknowledge but didn't mean it because he thinks God guesses which isn't foreknowledge.

Semantically, Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial is not the same as other examples of foreknowledge. It definitely isn't something that Jesus would have had to know from the foundation of the world, right?

Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial was not a guess but also not prophesied in the OT .

 

[Derf]

He said only open theism allows for foreknowledge but didn't mean it because he thinks God guesses which isn't foreknowledge.

Can you point me to the place in the debate where he says that?

 

[way 2 go]

Can you point me to the place in the debate where he says that?

He said only open theism allows for foreknowledge and stopped but before that
he said that God only knew what was knowable meaning only past & present .

open theist don't believe that God knows all that is knowable
God asked where Adam was and where satan had been and
they believe God didn't know what was going on in sodom.

 

[Derf]

He said only open theism allows for foreknowledge and stopped but before that
he said that God only knew what was knowable meaning only past & present .

open theist don't believe that God knows all that is knowable
God asked where Adam was and where satan had been and
they believe God didn't know what was going on in sodom.

You might be confusing CJ's statements about Will's belief in "the future" with Will's actual belief about the future. Will was trying to say that the future, as a thing, does not exist. But the future, as a concept, exists. In other words, God can reasonably say, "In 40 days Nineveh will be destroyed." And then when they aren't destroyed after 40 days passes, we see God's mercy, not incompetence.

Most open theists don't agree with your conclusions about Adam and Satan's whereabouts. And my opinion on the activities re. Sodom was that the angels were testing to see how far the people of Sodom would actually go--not just what had already happened there. I expect Will and many OTs agree with me in that.

 

[Derf]

:think:

Do you agree with AMR there? He appeals to his own understanding as proof of his understanding. Not very convincing in my book.

 

[way 2 go]

You might be confusing CJ's statements about Will's belief in "the future" with Will's actual belief about the future. Will was trying to say that the future, as a thing, does not exist. But the future, as a concept, exists. In other words, God can reasonably say, "In 40 days Nineveh will be destroyed." And then when they aren't destroyed after 40 days passes, we see God's mercy, not incompetence.

the future, as a thing, does not exist so can't be known according to the open theist.

God is prophesying the punishment and the unrepentance
and open theist say God is guessing that he may or may not punish & they may or may not repent.

Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial onto the sun. And it was given to him to burn men with fire.
Rev 16:9 And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory.

Most open theists don't agree with your conclusions about Adam and Satan's whereabouts. And my opinion on the activities re. Sodom was that the angels were testing to see how far the people of Sodom would actually go--not just what had already happened there. I expect Will and many OTs agree with me in that.

so God didn't know how many righteous there were he had to learn

Gen 18:24 Perhaps there are fifty righteous within the city. Will You also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are in it?


kinda like saying God needed to learn Abraham's heart even tho Hebrews 11:19 tells us God knew

to quote AMR
To make such a bold claim is to ignore the related texts to this passage, especially Hebrews 11:19, which says, "He (Abraham) considered that God is able to raise men (Isaac) even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type." If we exposit the passage, it demonstrates without any doubt that Abraham had a God-fearing heart leading up to his sacrifice of Isaac. Since God knows this—all openists acknowledge God has perfect knowledge of the past and present—it is absolutely error to interpret Gen 22:12 as saying that when Abraham lifted the knife did God 'learn' that Abraham feared God. It is easy to make the Bible say what we want it to say when we only appeal to certain texts and certain parts of certain texts.

 

[way 2 go]

Herod Kills the Children
Mat 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked by the wise men, was greatly enraged. And he sent and killed all the boys in Bethlehem, and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had carefully inquired of the wise men.
Mat 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying,
Mat 2:18 "A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not."

 

[Derf]

Herod Kills the Children
Mat 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked by the wise men, was greatly enraged. And he sent and killed all the boys in Bethlehem, and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had carefully inquired of the wise men.
Mat 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying,
Mat 2:18 "A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not."

Who do you think talked Herod into killing all the children?
If Satan, then God could reasonably tell what would happen by knowing Satan and his mindset.

 

[way 2 go]

Who do you think talked Herod into killing all the children?
If Satan, then God could reasonably tell what would happen by knowing Satan and his mindset.

I didn't know open theism relied on satan so much doesn't really help tho.


still the open theist God is a really good guesser

Mat 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying,

Jer 31:15 So says Jehovah: A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her sons; she refuses to be comforted for her sons, because they are not.

 

[Derf]

I didn't know open theism relied on satan so much doesn't really help tho.


still the open theist God is a really good guesser

Mat 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying,

Jer 31:15 So says Jehovah: A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her sons; she refuses to be comforted for her sons, because they are not.

Any free-willed being involved must be relied upon for determining why something happens.

 

[Derf]

I wanted to go back and address this post of yours more completely.

the future, as a thing, does not exist so can't be known according to the open theist.

God is prophesying the punishment and the unrepentance
and open theist say God is guessing that he may or may not punish & they may or may not repent.

Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial onto the sun. And it was given to him to burn men with fire.
Rev 16:9 And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory.

I'm pretty sure you are feeling the inadequacy of your argument, and thus you keep trying to inflate its impact through repetition. But hopefully you are also beginning to understand why the "guessing" argument is inadequate. For instance, in the Hezekiah case, if God was foretelling the future when He said Hezekiah would not survive his sickness:

[2Ki 20:1 KJV] In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.
...
[2Ki 20:4 KJV] And it came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that the word of the LORD came to him, saying,
[2Ki 20:5 KJV] Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee...

In these verses God tells Hezekiah two opposite things--1. that he would not recover from his sickness, and 2. that he would recover from his sickness.
Assuming your view for a moment, that the future is settled, and assuming God only prophecies what is the truth, and that God knows the future (Do you agree with these 3 things?), then please tell me what happened?
1. God knew the truth that Hezekiah would live 15 more years, but told Hezekiah a lie to get him to pray for mercy
2. God did not know the truth that Hezekiah would live 15 more years, so He didn't lie, but it shows God can't see into the (settled) future, so He was guessing

I'm pretty sure you won't pick #2, which leaves you with #1--you believe God lies in His prophecies sometimes.

Now, let's add one more option, which removes the settled future proposition:
3. God told Hezekiah the truth, that he would die of his sickness, then, in response to Hezekiah's prayer, God changed Hezekiah's fate.
so God didn't know how many righteous there were; he had to learn. Because "righteous" is not in what you think, but in what you do with what you think. Temptations are offered because they can either be embraced or rejected. Those angels went into Sodom and were prepared to offer themselves as bait in the open square--to see if the people would be as wicked as they seemed to have grown over time.

[And, by the way, there were likely 10 people in Sodom that might have been considered righteous--Lot, his wife, their two unmarried daughters, and at least two (maybe three?) married daughters and their husbands. [Gen 19:14 KJV] And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.]

Each of these three options removes one of the three propositions I offered.
#1 removes the option that God always prophecies the truth. Thus you are saying that God sometimes lies.
#2 removes the option that God knows what the truth is. Thus you are saying that God is NOT omniscient.
#3 removes the option that the future is settled. Thus God told the truth--that Hezekiah was not going to outlive his sickness, but God changed the truth (Hezekiah's future) so that he WOULD outlive his sickness.
Which of these three options do you choose?

Gen 18:24 Perhaps there are fifty righteous within the city. Will You also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are in it?

There are two options here:
1. God knew there were not even 10 righteous people, so there's no conflict, except a perceived one.
Maybe you don't understand what God means by "righteous".

kinda like saying God needed to learn Abraham's heart even tho Hebrews 11:19 tells us God knew

to quote AMR
To make such a bold claim is to ignore the related texts to this passage, especially Hebrews 11:19, which says, "He (Abraham) considered that God is able to raise men (Isaac) even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type." If we exposit the passage, it demonstrates without any doubt that Abraham had a God-fearing heart leading up to his sacrifice of Isaac. Since God knows this—all openists acknowledge God has perfect knowledge of the past and present—it is absolutely error to interpret Gen 22:12 as saying that when Abraham lifted the knife did God 'learn' that Abraham feared God. It is easy to make the Bible say what we want it to say when we only appeal to certain texts and certain parts of certain texts.

Does Hebrews say when God knew? No. So your reference adds nothing to the discussion.

What did Abraham tell Sarah before he left to sacrifice Isaac? It's possible that he didn't tell her anything--as he didn't go back to her after the experience. In fact, it's possible that Sarah never saw her son alive again. She died alone--without Abraham, Isaac, or even Ishmael--in a place separate from Abraham. She probably had some servants, but it seems there was a falling away, where they lived separately for some time between the supposed sacrifice of Isaac and the death of Sarah. Go read the end of Gen 28 through the beginning of Gen 29, and you'll see what I mean. Note where Abraham and Isaac lived and where Sarah died.

Why is that important? Consider, if Abraham had told Sarah what God had told him to do, what would her reaction have been? Disbelief? Loss of trust in Abraham, if not in God Himself? Why is that a problem if Abraham had followed up with, "Don't worry, Sarah. God will raise him from the dead, and everything will be fine." She likely would have said, "If leave here with Isaac, don't ever bother coming back!"

Abraham was not at the beginning of his travels the pillar of faith he was at the end of his life. He grew in faith. Even Calvinists say that the purpose of God's directive to sacrifice Isaac was not for God to find out whether Abraham was going to be faithful, but for Abraham to find that out. If Abraham didn't know, did God know more of Abraham's heart than Abraham knew? Can you honestly say that God knew Abraham would sacrifice his only son before Abraham knew it, especially if Calvinists insist that the trial was to teach Abraham about his own faith???

Here's what Calvin says about it. Note how Calvin doesn't seem to like Augustine's exposition, but Calvin has no way out of it, due to his presupposition that God knows all things of the future?? "Verse 12. Now I know that thou fearest God . The exposition of Augustine, 'I have caused thee to know,' is forced. But how can any thing become known to God, to whom all things have always been present? Truly, by condescending to the manner of men, God here says that what he has proved by experiment, is now made known to himself. And he speaks thus with us, not according to his own infinite wisdom, but according to our infirmity. Moses, however, simply means that Abraham, by this very act, testified how reverently he feared God."

But this flies in the face of the Westminster Confession that states God doesn't know the future because He can see into it (as Calvin stumbles, here), but because God ordained everything future!

Openists offer a different idea--that Abraham didn't know yet that he would sacrifice his son any more than God knew--until the time came to plunge the knife. Then both Abraham and God knew simultaneously that Abraham loved God more than his only son.

 

[way 2 go]

I wanted to go back and address this post of yours more completely.
I'm pretty sure you are feeling the inadequacy of your argument,

i keep using it because it's true

the future, as a thing, does not exist so can't be known according to the open theist.

God is prophesying the punishment and the unrepentance
and open theist say God is guessing that he may or may not punish & they may or may not repent.

Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial onto the sun. And it was given to him to burn men with fire.
Rev 16:9 And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory.

and thus you keep trying to inflate its impact through repetition. But hopefully you are also beginning to understand why the "guessing" argument is inadequate. For instance, in the Hezekiah case, if God was foretelling the future when He said Hezekiah would not survive his sickness:

Did God need foreknowledge to know Hezekiah was going to die. no
Did God need foreknowledge to keep Hezekiah alive 15 more years . no

your Hezekiah verses are about whether or not the future is settled

[2Ki 20:1 KJV] In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.

...
[2Ki 20:4 KJV] And it came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that the word of the LORD came to him, saying,
[2Ki 20:5 KJV] Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee...

In these verses God tells Hezekiah two opposite things--1. that he would not recover from his sickness, and 2. that he would recover from his sickness.
Assuming your view for a moment, that the future is settled, and assuming God only prophecies what is the truth, and that God knows the future (Do you agree with these 3 things?), then please tell me what happened?
1. God knew the truth that Hezekiah would live 15 more years, but told Hezekiah a lie to get him to pray for mercy
2. God did not know the truth that Hezekiah would live 15 more years, so He didn't lie, but it shows God can't see into the (settled) future, so He was guessing

I'm pretty sure you won't pick #2, which leaves you with #1--you believe God lies in His prophecies sometimes.

Now, let's add one more option, which removes the settled future proposition:
3. God told Hezekiah the truth, that he would die of his sickness, then, in response to Hezekiah's prayer, God changed Hezekiah's fate.

Each of these three options removes one of the three propositions I offered.
#1 removes the option that God always prophecies the truth. Thus you are saying that God sometimes lies.
#2 removes the option that God knows what the truth is. Thus you are saying that God is NOT omniscient.
#3 removes the option that the future is settled. Thus God told the truth--that Hezekiah was not going to outlive his sickness, but God changed the truth (Hezekiah's future) so that he WOULD outlive his sickness.
Which of these three options do you choose?

4.God knew he was going to extend Hezekiah life and needed Hezekiah and us to know it was a miracle

so God didn't know how many righteous there were; he had to learn. Because "righteous" is not in what you think, but in what you do with what you think. Temptations are offered because they can either be embraced or rejected. Those angels went into Sodom and were prepared to offer themselves as bait in the open square--to see if the people would be as wicked as they seemed to have grown over time.

so which is it the open theist says God knows everything that is knowable or God doesn't know what is knowable,
and either way doesn't know the future but guesses .
the open theist God is created in mans image

Gen 18:20 Then the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave,

[And, by the way, there were likely 10 people in Sodom that might have been considered righteous--Lot, his wife, their two unmarried daughters, and at least two (maybe three?) married daughters and their husbands. [Gen 19:14 KJV] And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.]

there were not 10 righteous in sodom ,you know how I know ,sodom was destroyed

Gen 18:32 Then he said, "Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak again but this once. Suppose ten are found there." He answered, "For the sake of ten I will not destroy it."

Does Hebrews say when God knew? No. So your reference adds nothing to the discussion.

since Abraham never actually sacrificed his son we only know from what Abraham believed